SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • Fibrosis progression;
  • pegylated interferon;
  • recurrent hepatitis C;
  • sustained virological response;
  • viral kinetics

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Patients and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. References

Chronic hepatitis C is a principal indication for liver transplantation. Recurrent viral infection is inevitable and graft disease is common. We report tolerability, safety and efficacy of pegylated interferon alpha 2b (PEG-IFN) monotherapy for patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) recurrence and fibrosis after liver transplantation. Repeated measurements of serum HCV titer permitted assessment of the kinetics of the antiviral response for all patients.

We screened 63 patients transplanted for HCV at our center for antiviral treatment, 14 were eligible and treated, but only 6 completed the proposed 52 weeks of therapy. Eight were withdrawn because of severe/life-threatening side effects/events, including liver dysfunction (4 patients). None of those 8 achieved a sustained virological response (SVR). Five of 6 who completed treatment were HCV RNA negative at the end of treatment, and 2 achieved an SVR. Viral kinetics were similar to published observations for treatment of non-transplanted HCV patients. Patients with genotype non-1 infection displayed a more rapid decline of viral titer than was observed for genotype 1 infection.

Post-transplant HCV patients are frequently unsuitable for, or intolerant of PEG-IFN. Liver dysfunction was a major concern.


Introduction

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Patients and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. References

Chronic hepatitis C affects more than 170 million people worldwide and may lead to cirrhosis and liver cancer (1). In most liver transplant programs, hepatitis C is the most frequent indication for liver transplantation (2). Recurrence of viral infection and disease after transplantation is virtually universal (3,4). In this clinical setting the disease is frequently more rapidly progressive in comparison with non-transplanted patients, and may lead to graft cirrhosis in 8–30% of patients within 5–7 years of transplantation (5–7).

Antiviral treatment of non-immunosuppressed non-transplant patients with combination pegylated IFN (PEG-IFN) and ribavirin (RIBA) leads to sustained virological response (SVR) in a substantial proportion (8,9). Treatment of the hepatitis C virus (HCV) patient after liver transplantation is more challenging. Combination therapy is efficacious, but patient selection is difficult, and tolerability and timing of therapy remain a challenge (10–12). With respect to the preferred timing of treatment, two strategies have been proposed (5,13). Proponents of pre-emptive or early post-transplant treatment argue that HCV recurrence should/can be treated before significant graft damage has occurred, and that efficacy may be enhanced by treatment at an early stage (14). However, opponents of early treatment express concern that the risk for development of graft rejection may be increased (15), and that early treatment does not permit segregation of patients into those with mild (for whom the risk/benefit balance might be to defer consideration of treatment) vs those with more aggressive graft reinfection (who might benefit from treatment to prevent precocious graft damage). Thus, many physicians argue in favor of deferred antiviral treatment, targeted at those with clinically significant graft reinfection.

Standard treatment for chronic hepatitis C is the combination of PEG-IFN and RIBA, which has been used in the post-transplant setting (5,11,12,14,16,17), reviewed in Ref. [18]. However, monotherapy with PEG-IFN may result in an SVR in a significant percentage of patients, notably patients infected with genotypes 2 or 3 (19–21). The main side effect of RIBA is anemia, which may be severe if dose adjustment is not made for treatment of patients with renal dysfunction (22,23), including transplant recipients. Thus, PEG-IFN monotherapy may be an effective and a safer treatment for patients post liver transplant.

Here, we report the results of an investigator-initiated study that evaluated the safety, tolerability and efficacy of PEG-IFN given to liver transplant patients with HCV recurrence and evidence of fibrosis on pre-treatment liver biopsy. In addition, the protocol included detailed viral kinetic studies during the first week of treatment.

Patients and Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Patients and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. References

Eligibility criteria and study design

All patients who were transplanted for HCV between January 1988 and December 2002 were reviewed for eligibility for this study. Liver Unit protocol requires annual review liver biopsy for HCV patients. All eligible patients who attended our outpatient department and were reviewed personally by the investigators (MH & DM) had undergone liver biopsy within 3 months before enrollment and within 3 months of commencement of antiviral treatment. Baseline biopsy was required to demonstrate fibrosis, at least stage 1 (Ishak score, see Ref. [24]). Recent rejection or change in immunosuppressants (change of drug within 1 year of treatment begin) was a contraindication to inclusion in the study. Other exclusion criteria were significant comorbidity precluding 1 year of antiviral treatment such as any psychological and social reasons including uncontrolled or untreated depression, alcohol abuse and patient choice, other significant liver disease or other severe organ or systemic disease such as renal, pulmonary or cardiovascular disease, diabetes or alcohol dependency, immune deficiency or autoimmune disease, age over 70 and multiple organ transplantation. It was planned that consenting patients would receive 52 weeks of treatment with PEG-IFN. Liver biopsy was scheduled for the end of treatment and for 12 months post-treatment (in keeping with Liver Unit protocol).

The study protocol was approved by the local research ethics committee and all participating patients gave written informed consent. PEG-IFN alpha 2b was given once weekly at a dose of 1.0–1.5 μg/kg body weight. As a starting dose, 1.5 μg/kg was aimed for and doses were rounded to the nearest 10 μg. In view of anticipated side effects with IFN treatment anxious patients were allowed to start at a lower dose (but at least 1.0 μg/kg) with the aim of increasing the dose to 1.5 μg/kg as tolerated during ongoing treatment. At treatment initiation, patients were admitted to a committed clinical research ward of our hospital for viral kinetic studies. Safety of treatment was monitored by outpatient review at treatment weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and every 4 weeks thereafter, and with additional reviews as clinically indicated. Adverse events were monitored at every clinic visit (using the WHO grading system) and PEG-IFN reduced for moderate and stopped for severe adverse events. No growth factors were given for neutropenia. Antidepressants were used for treatment of depression, but antiviral treatment was not continued if depression was severe.

Assessment of viral titer and drug efficacy

Serum samples for HCV viral titer measurement were obtained at time points 0 (immediately before first injection), 3, 6, 9, 12, 24 and 48 h, and at weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 24 and 52 of treatment or until discontinuation of antiviral therapy. All patients had samples taken to determine virological status at the end of treatment and 6 months later to evaluate the possibility of SVR.

Viral titer was determined using the Roche Amplicor® assay (Roche Diagnostics, Lewes BN7 1LG, UK), which gives reliable results between 6 × 102 and 5.5 × 105 copies/mL. For results below the detection level of the quantitative assay, a qualitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used to determine viral positivity (sensitivity level 400 copies/mL). For viral titer levels above the range of the quantitative test, the serum samples were diluted 1:100 and retested.

Virus half-life was calculated by examination of the decline of serum titer observed after PEG-IFN treatment initiation. The steepest decline of viral titer observed during the first 48 h of treatment was used for calculation according to the formula

  • image

S= maximum slope of viral titer decline in the first 48 h, see Ref. [25].

Histological analysis

Pre- and post-treatment routine liver biopsies obtained using a 1.6-mm Menghini needle were cut and stained using standard histological methods. Histology was scored with regards to inflammatory grade (0–18) and fibrosis stage (0–6) by an experienced histopathologist (SH) using the Ishak scoring system (24), and fibrosis stage was also scored using the METAVIR score (26).

Statistical analysis

For analysis of the data the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-test was used to compare medians of different groups of patients. A p-value of less than 0.05 (two tailed) was regarded as statistically significant.

Results

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Patients and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. References

A total of 139 patients were transplanted for chronic HCV in our Liver Unit between the years 1988 and 2002. Of these patients, 42 died prior to initiation of this study, and 34 patients were followed up abroad or were lost to follow-up. The remaining 63 patients were reviewed regarding the suitability for antiviral treatment, and 49 patients were excluded for the reasons outlined in Table 1 (more than one reason in some).

Table 1.  Reasons for exclusion of patients for treatment
Reason of exclusionNumber of patients1
  1. Reasons of exclusion of 49 patients from treatment.

  2. 1In several patients there was more than one reason for exclusion.

  3. 2Other causes were obesity, HIV infection, epilepsy, systemic lupus erythematodes, triple transplant and retinal vein occlusion in one patient each.

Psychological problems16
 Anxiety1
 Depression14
 Alcohol dependency3
Social issues and preference7
Liver disease
 Rejection3
 Recent change in immunosuppression2
 Liver failure and other liver disease9
Absence of fibrosis or HCV PCR negativity12
Other organ disease
 Renal7
 Cardiovascular5
 Respiratory3
Difficult to control diabetes3
Cancer2
Age3
Other diseases62

Finally, 14 patients were suitable for the study and consented to treatment. Twelve of 14 patients were male, the median age was 50 years and the median pre-treatment body weight was 84 kg (see Table 2). Five patients were infected with HCV genotype 1, 3 with genotype 2 and 6 with genotype 3. Two patients were of Asian origin (#8 and #13) and were infected by genotype 3. The other 12 patients were Caucasians. Immunosuppression comprised cyclosporine for 6 patients (4 with azathioprine), tacrolimus for 8 patients (1 with azathioprine, 2 with mycophenolate).

Table 2.  Demographics of PEG-IFN-treated patients
Patient numberSexEthnicityAgeHCV genotypeWeight (kg)Pre-treatment fibrosis score1Pre-treatment viral loadTreatment begin (in years post OLT)
  1. M = male; F = female; C = Caucasian; A = Asian.

  2. 1The fibrosis was scored as described by Ishak et al. Viral load was measured using the Roche Amplicor® assay.

1MC592a/2c10435.3 × 1053.8
2MC503c9431.2 × 1063.2
3MC522b99.7NA1.4 × 1072.3
4MC562b82.763.58 × 1065.5
5MC3716933.8 × 1061.9
6MC4219829.59 × 1053.0
7FC483a51.321.3 × 1053.4
8MA513a75.5NA2.7 × 1062.0
9MC491b9932.2 × 1064.3
10MC5038531.8 × 1050.9
11FC53177.531.2 × 1063.1
12MC571b8231.1 × 1052.4
13MA463b9814.88 × 1061.1
14MC483a74.911.3 × 1061.8

The median pre-treatment fibrosis stage was 3 and the inflammatory grade 6. Commencement of PEG-IFN was at an average of 2 years and 9 months after liver transplantation. The mean initial dose of PEG-IFN was 109 μg (1.3 μg/kg), median 100 μg.

Treatment tolerability

All 14 patients treated with PEG-IFN experienced side effects. The most common side effects were flu-like symptoms (12 patients), infections (5 patients) including three infections at injection sites, and depression (3 patients). Of the 14 patients, only 6 completed 52 weeks of treatment. Five of these 6 did not require any PEG-IFN dose reduction, and 1 patient required a dose reduction (from 1.3 μg/kg at commencement to 1.2 μg/kg) in response to neutropenia at treatment week 18 (Table 3).

Table 3.  Treatment tolerability and follow-up of the 14 treated patients
Patient numberTolerability and follow-up
  1. ANA = anti mitochondrial antibody; SMA = smooth muscle antibody.

1Retinal vein thrombosis leading to blindness
2Intolerable flu-like symptoms
3Pruritus, deterioration of liver biochemistry. Biopsy: recurrent HCV infection, prominent bile duct damage and loss (in 40% of the portal fields). Liver biochemistry improved after discontinuation of PEG-IFN
4Severe depression
5Acute renal failure and fungal sepsis
6Abnormal liver biochemistry, positive ANA and SMA, IgG and IgA raised. Biopsy: cellular rejection and recurrent hepatitis C
7Neutropenia and infection, abnormal liver biochemistry. Liver histology: HCV infection and ductopenia + ductular reaction in keeping with low-grade chronic rejection, nodular regenerative hyperplasia. Reassessed for liver transplant, died of liver failure
8Shoulder pain, chest infection and leg weakness during treatment
9Septic episode after sigmoidoscopy, psychological side effects, hair loss and injection site infection during treatment
10Abnormal liver biochemistry week 44. Biopsy: moderate inflammation and fibrosis, bile duct damage. Increase in tacrolimus dose and continuation of antiviral treatment
11Weight loss, tiredness and abnormal liver biochemistry positive SMA and elevated IgG week 32. Biopsy: recurrent hepatitis C, features compatible with autoimmune hepatitis, features suggestive of fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis. Patient died with liver failure shortly after treatment discontinuation
12Flu-like symptoms only
13Diarrhea, flu-like symptoms, injection site infection times 2
14Lethargy, facial swelling, neutropenia, injection site infection

Of the 8 patients who failed to complete treatment, PEG-IFN was stopped after a median treatment duration of 10 weeks. PEG-IFN was discontinued in 4 patients because of abnormal liver biochemistry.

Patient 3 developed pruritus and deterioration of biochemical liver function tests at treatment week 8. Liver biopsy showed changes in keeping with recurrent HCV infection but also prominent bile duct damage and loss (in 40% of the portal fields). PEG-IFN treatment was stopped, and the biochemistry improved. Clinically, the patient remains well with stable biochemistry more than 6 years after transplantation and more than 3 years after PEG-IFN treatment.

Patient 7 experienced neutropenia and infection with Streptococcus pneumoniae. That was followed by abnormal liver biochemistry at treatment week 13, which led to discontinuation of PEG-IFN. Liver histology at that time showed mild inflammatory activity and fibrosis consistent with HCV infection, but also ductopenia and ductular reaction in keeping with low-grade chronic rejection. In addition, nodular regenerative hyperplasia was diagnosed.

Patient 11 presented at treatment week 32 with weight loss, tiredness and abnormal liver function tests. The biopsy at that time was compatible with recurrent hepatitis C and treatment was withdrawn because of increasing intolerance to the IFN. Immunological investigations revealed a positive smooth muscle antibody (SMA) with an elevated serum IgG of 21.9 g%. In response to persistently abnormal liver function tests, liver biopsy was repeated and showed features of recurrent hepatitis C, but with very prominent inflammation (raising the possibility of an additional pathological process such as autoimmune hepatitis). In addition, biliary features were present as seen in aggressive HCV infection (fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis). The patient died shortly thereafter of liver failure.

Patient 6 developed abnormal liver biochemistry at treatment week 26. Liver biopsy showed features of both cellular rejection and recurrent hepatitis C. The immunological investigations showed positive anti-nuclear antibody (ANA 1:40), weakly positive SMA, IgG 18.16 g% and IgA 3.35 g%. Treatment was discontinued.

In addition to these patients who stopped treatment because of abnormal liver function, patient 10 experienced abnormal liver biochemistry at treatment week 44. Liver histology at that time showed mild to moderate inflammatory activity and fibrosis, and also prominent bile duct damage consistent with either rejection or HCV infection. The immunosuppression (tacrolimus) was increased and antiviral treatment was continued until treatment week 52.

There were two very early treatment withdrawals. One patient stopped treatment because of intolerable flu-like side effects. The other patient suffered severe early depression. Sudden loss of vision associated with retinal vein thrombosis (treatment week 19, patient 1), and presumed fungal sepsis with acute renal failure (treatment week 2, patient 5) were the indications for premature treatment cessation for an additional 2 patients.

Virological outcome and viral kinetics

Median viral titer of the 14 patients prior to treatment was 2 × 106 copies/mL (1.2 × 106 for genotype 1, and 2.7 × 106 for genotypes 2/3). The median viral half-life was 4.77 h for all patients as calculated using the steepest drop in viral titer observed during the first 48 h after initiation of antiviral treatment (5.89 for genotype 1 patients and 2.79 for genotype 2/3 patients, p-value for difference between genotypes >0.2).

The median viral titer 1 week after the first dose was 4.9 × 105 for the whole patient group, 1.5 × 106 for genotype 1 and 1.1 × 105 for genotypes 2/3 (p > 0.2).

A reduction in viral titer in the first week (for examples of viral kinetics see Figure 1) was found with a median of 0.7 log10 reduction (0.2 log10 in patients with genotype 1 and 1.1 log10 for patients with genotypes 2/3, p > 0.2). Of the 10 patients who had at least 12 weeks of treatment 7 had undetectable HCV RNA at week 12, 2 had a drop in viral titer of 0.5 and 0.6 log10 and 1 patient had an increase in viral titer of 0.3 log10. At week 24, 8 patients continued on treatment and 6 of these had undetectable HCV RNA. Six patients were treated for 52 weeks, and 5/6 were RNA-negative at the end of treatment. Ultimately, 2 patients (of all 63 patients screened for antiviral treatment) achieved SVR. The patient who failed to achieve RNA-negativity despite 52 weeks of treatment had a drop in viral titer of 0.4 log10 during 1-year treatment. Overall, an end of treatment response was observed for 8 of the 14 patients. For 3 patients this was at the time of premature treatment withdrawal, and none of those 3 patients had an SVR.

image

Figure 1. Viral kinetics of 4 patients at initiation of treatment. Viral load was measured using the Roche Amplicor® assay before as well as 1/2 h, 3 h, 6 h, 12 h, 24 h and 7 days after the first injection of PEG-IFN. The kinetics of 4 representative patients are displayed. For correlation with viral outcome of these patients see Table 4.

Download figure to PowerPoint

The 2 patients who experienced SVR had the greatest reductions in viral titer at day 7 after treatment initiation (at least 3.0 log10, Table 4).

Table 4.  Viral kinetics and virological outcome of the 14 patients treated with PEG-IFN
Patient numberHCV genotypeViral titer pre-treatmentVirus half-life (h)Drop in viral titer at 1 week (log10)Treatment duration (weeks)End of treatment PCRSVR
  1. Viral half-life (in hours) as estimated by the steepest drop in viral load at initiation of treatment. Treatment duration in weeks corresponds to the number of doses given. SVR = sustained virological response = PCR negativity 6 months after the end of antiviral treatment.

12a/2c5.3 × 10510.580.819NegativeNo
23c1.2 × 1061.132.51PositiveNo
32b1.4 × 1072.791.57NegativeNo
42b3.58 × 1062.4802PositiveNo
513.8 × 1065.890.42PositiveNo
619.59 × 10519.00025NegativeNo
73a1.3 × 1059.64013NegativeNo
83a2.7 × 1061.413.152NegativeYes
91b2.2 × 1063.890.252NegativeNo
1031.8 × 1053.612.352NegativeNo
1111.2 × 106>20032PositiveNo
121b1.1 × 1055.653.052NegativeYes
133b4.88 × 1065.680.6521.6 × 106No
143a1.3 × 1061.891.152NegativeNo

Histological outcome

Study protocol scheduled biopsies pre-treatment, post-treatment and 1 year after treatment (Table 5). Of the 9 patients who had pre- and post-treatment biopsies, 4 had an unchanged fibrosis score during treatment, 1 patient had an improved fibrosis score (patient 7) and 4 had fibrosis progression during treatment (Ishak scores, Table 5). All but 1 patient had a slowing of fibrosis progression rate as calculated using the pre- and post-treatment biopsy Ishak scores. Inflammatory grade was stable or improved in all but patient 14, who also experienced a deterioration of fibrosis score during treatment (Table 5). One-year follow-up biopsies were available for 7 patients, 4 of which showed fibrosis progression and 3 had a stable fibrosis score. Of the 6 patients who completed 52 weeks of treatment, the non-responder (#13) had progression of fibrosis during and after treatment (Ishak stage 1 [RIGHTWARDS ARROW] 2 [RIGHTWARDS ARROW] 3) and an increase in inflammatory grade after treatment (grade 6 [RIGHTWARDS ARROW] 6 [RIGHTWARDS ARROW] 7). Of the 3 patients with the end of treatment HCV RNA negativity but without SVR, 2 had fibrosis progression during treatment (#10 and #14) and 1 (#9) had a stable fibrosis score. Of these patients, 2 regressed in inflammatory grade (#9 and #10) and 1 progressed (#14, Table 5).

Table 5.  Changes in fibrosis stage and inflammatory grade with PEG-IFN treatment and during 1-year follow-up
Patient numberPre-treatmentPost-treatment1-year follow-up
Fibrosis stageFibrosis progressionInflammatory gradeFibrosis stageFibrosis progressionInflammatory gradeFibrosis stageFibrosis progressionInflammatory grade
  1. Stage as determined by Ishak scoring (and METAVIR) as well as grade before and after treatment and at 1-year follow-up is given in patients in whom at least one post-treatment biopsy sample was available for staging. Fibrosis progression pre-treatment is calculated from the date of transplantation (stage 0) to the date of last biopsy prior to treatment begin. Fibrosis progression during treatment is calculated as progression from last biopsy prior to treatment to the first biopsy post-treatment and fibrosis progression during follow-up is calculated from biopsy post-treatment to 1-year follow-up biopsy. Fibrosis progression is calculated using Ishak scores (and METAVIR scores).

  2. NA = Data not available.

  3. 1The sample immediately post-treatment did not allow grading and staging in patient 6. Therefore, a biopsy in the second half of treatment (4 months into treatment and 2 months before treatment discontinuation) is reported here but not included in the calculation of the median.

  4. 2Patients who completed 52 weeks of antiviral treatment.

23 (2)0.96 (0.64)73 (2)0.0 (0.0)7NANANA
53 (2)1.39 (0.92)65 (3)1.11 (0.56)5NANANA
62 (1)0.53 (0.26)92 (1)1NA513 (2)NA5
72 (1)0.99 (0.50)61 (1)−0.58 (0)41 (1)0.0 (0.0)3
82NANANA1 (1)NA31 (1)0.0 (0.0)2
923 (2)0.73 (0.49)73 (2)0.0 (0.0)5NANANA
1023 (2)4.64 (3.09)64 (3)0.46 (0.46)5NANANA
113 (2)0.98 (0.65)73 (2)0.0 (0.0)45 (3)1.86 (0.93)8
1223 (2)1.49 (0.99)63 (2)0.0 (0.0)63 (2)0.0 (0.0)3
1321 (1)1.01 (1.01)62 (1)0.77 (0.0)63 (2)0.80 (0.80)7
1421 (1)0.59 (0.59)22 (1)0.68 (0.0)33 (2)1.16 (1.16)3
Median3 (2)0.99 (0.65)63 (2)0.0 (0.0)53 (2)0.0 (0.0)3

Both patients with SVR (#8 and #12) had a stable fibrosis stage during the period investigated (stages 1 and 3, respectively) and improved in their inflammatory grade post-treatment (grade 3 [RIGHTWARDS ARROW] 2 and grade 6 [RIGHTWARDS ARROW] 3, respectively, Table 5).

Discussion

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Patients and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. References

This study makes a number of important observations. Firstly, in our experience the proportion of patients who could benefit from antiviral treatment was very small: of 63 patients screened for antiviral treatment, a minority appeared suitable for treatment, and only 2 treated patients achieved sustained virological clearance. Contraindications to antiviral therapy are frequently observed in the post-transplant state. Secondly, in this select treated group, complications of treatment were frequently experienced. Thirdly, the viral kinetics in this patient group are similar to those observed during the treatment of non-immunosuppressed patients, and sustained virological response may be possible. Thus, PEG-IFN has antiviral efficacy, but application is limited by contraindications and poor tolerance. Our finding that a small proportion of our patients were ultimately treated with PEG-IFN is consistent with the relatively low rates of patient recruitment observed in other post-transplant HCV treatment studies. For example, in a recently published study, only 67 patients were enrolled from more than 20 Liver Units (27).

The patients selected for treatment in our study were clinically stable at treatment initiation with no evidence of hepatic decompensation and no significant comorbidity. None had experienced recent rejection. Nevertheless, a number of patients experienced serious side effects, frequently necessitating withdrawal of antiviral therapy. The serious side effects, which were probably caused by PEG-IFN treatment, included depression, graft rejection, probable de novo autoimmune hepatitis and retinal vein thrombosis. In addition, one patient developed a severe infection complicated by renal failure shortly after commencement of antiviral treatment. Causation is unclear. It appears that, compared with treatment of non-transplant immunocompetent patients, antiviral treatment of transplanted patients is a greater challenge. Complications can be expected more frequently and are potentially more serious. Consistent with our observations, a recent study of pre-emptive treatment for HCV transplant patients also found that a small percentage of screened patients were suitable for treatment, and the authors reported a high percentage of dose reductions, treatment withdrawals and complications (28). In our study, we found that severe complications could occur at any stage of treatment, and we therefore recommend very regular follow-up during the entire duration of the treatment. Because of the potential risks, the treatment should be given in centers experienced with transplant follow-up and with antiviral treatment for chronic hepatitis C.

As part of the viral kinetic study, serum viral titer was measured immediately before administration of PEG-IFN. Titers were similar to those found in non-immunosuppressed patients (25,29–32) and were no different from those measured by other investigators in patients during the chronic stable phase of reinfection with HCV (33,34). First phase decline of viral titer during treatment is an index of antiviral efficacy. The rate of decline permits calculation of serum virus half-life. The half-lives we measured for patients with HCV genotypes 2 and 3 were similar to the values described in the literature for non-immunosuppressed patients (32,35). The measured half-lives for patients with genotype 1 infection appear longer than those described in published literature for non-immunosuppressed patitents (2.86–3.0 h, (32,35)). However, the number of patients examined in our study is small. Also, calculation of first phase decline and serum half-life depend on the number of measurements made during the steep phase of viral decline. Thus, calculated values will overestimate the true half-lives. Differences observed between cohorts in different studies may reflect differences in sampling frequency rather than true differences in the rate of viral clearance during suppression of replication.

Although the numbers are small, the treatment results in this population reflect previous findings that the end of treatment responses and SVR are dependent on adherence to treatment (36) and are predicted by a rapid drop in serum titer at the initiation of treatment (30). In our cohort, 5 of 6 patients who tolerated the planned duration of treatment achieved an end of treatment response. In our cohort, in only 2 patients (1 patient with genotype 1 and 1 with genotype 3 infection) treated for 52 weeks, virological clearance (SVR) was seen. This confirms the finding that SVR can be achieved in this patient population, and it seems likely that the addition of RIBA to the treatment regimen (if tolerated) will decrease the rate of viral recurrence after the end of treatment. However, tolerability of combination therapy may be inferior to that of IFN monotherapy and compliance with treatment might be affected (5). Thus, it is important that all forms of treatment are evaluated on an intention-to-treat basis.

Published studies with combination antiviral therapy of IFN and RIBA for HCV recurrence thus report an SVR of around 20% for non-PEG-IFN (27,37–46), reviewed in Ref. [15] and 25% for PEG-IFN (5,12,14,16,17), reviewed in Ref. [18]. The numbers in these studies are small, and there is a wide variation of reported SVRs. However, it is believed that an SVR after antiviral treatment in this population is sustained and associated with improvement in liver fibrosis (47).

The interpretation of the histological analysis in our study is very limited because of the small numbers. However, of the 7 patients treated for more than 12 weeks, and in whom paired histology was available, 4 did not progress in their fibrosis stage and only 1 (#14) had a more rapid fibrosis progression during treatment compared to pre-treatment. This finding suggests that control of viral replication, even without the achievement of viral clearance, may be beneficial in terms of disease progression. Given the potential morbidity and mortality associated with post-transplant HCV cirrhosis, a treatment strategy aiming at viral suppression might be beneficial and cost effective.

Treatment had to be discontinued in 4 patients because of abnormal liver biochemistry, including 2 patients who developed histological evidence of rejection. Chronic as well as acute rejection has been reported in patients with recurrent hepatitis C treated with IFN, especially in the (early) trials of IFN monotherapy (5). Rejection appears to be less frequent in studies of combination antiviral therapy. Therefore, it is possible that there is a protective effect of RIBA. One study found histological evidence of graft rejection in 8 of 23 patients treated with IFN for recurrent hepatitis C (48). In this study as in ours, none of the patients had evidence of rejection pre-treatment, but 7patients experienced acute rejection and 1 chronic rejection with therapy. Antiviral treatment was continued in some of the patients, but 2 patients had to be retransplanted for graft loss attributed to the treatment (48).

We conclude that many patients transplanted for HCV and who develop recurrent disease will not be suitable for treatment with IFN, and that many will not tolerate prolonged treatment despite careful monitoring. Liver dysfunction, including severe rejection, was observed during our study and has been observed by other investigators. PEG-IFN-suppressed viral replication and a high proportion of treatment-tolerant patients achieved HCV RNA PCR-negativity by the end of treatment. Histological response in terms of slower fibrosis progression or improvement of fibrosis score may be possible and, therefore, prolonged antiviral treatment may be beneficial even in the absence of viral clearance.

Acknowledgments

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Patients and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. References

The study was carried out in the Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Facilities of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, and we are very grateful to all nurses helping with the study. The study drug and financial support for the viral load assays was provided for free by Shering Plough Ltd. M.H. was supported by a Wellcome Trust Clinical Training Fellowship and D.F. was supported by the Professional Education Department of the Defence Postgraduate Medical Deanery.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Patients and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. References
  • 1
    Lauer GM, Walker BD. Hepatitis C virus infection. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 4152.
  • 2
    Samuel D, Feray C. Recurrent hepatitis C after liver transplantation: Clinical and therapeutical issues. J Viral Hepat 2000; 7: 8792.
  • 3
    Wright TL, Combs C, Kim M et al. Interferon-alpha therapy for hepatitis C virus infection after liver transplantation. Hepatology 1994; 20 (4 Pt 1): 773779.
  • 4
    Gane EJ, Portmann BC, Naoumov NV et al. Long-term outcome of hepatitis C infection after liver transplantation. N Engl J Med 1996; 334: 815820.
  • 5
    Triantos C, Samonakis D, Stigliano R, Thalheimer U, Patch D, Burroughs A. Liver transplantation and hepatitis C virus: Systematic review of antiviral therapy. Transplantation 2005; 79: 261268.
  • 6
    Neff GW, O'Brien CB, Nery J et al. Factors that identify survival after liver retransplantation for allograft failure caused by recurrent hepatitis C infection. Liver Transpl 2004; 10: 14971503.
  • 7
    Curry MP. Hepatitis B and hepatitis C viruses in liver transplantation. Transplantation 2004; 78: 955963.
  • 8
    Manns MP, McHutchison JG, Gordon SC et al. Peginterferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin compared with interferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin for initial treatment of chronic hepatitis C: A randomised trial. Lancet 2001; 358: 958965.
  • 9
    Fried MW, Shiffman ML, Reddy KR et al. Peginterferon alfa-2a plus ribavirin for chronic hepatitis C virus infection. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 975982.
  • 10
    Neff GW, Montalbano M, O'Brien CB et al. Treatment of established recurrent hepatitis C in liver-transplant recipients with pegylated interferon-alfa-2b and ribavirin therapy. Transplantation 2004; 78: 13031307.
  • 11
    Toniutto P, Fabris C, Fumo E et al. Pegylated versus standard interferon-alpha in antiviral regimens for post-transplant recurrent hepatitis C: Comparison of tolerability and efficacy. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005; 20: 577582.
  • 12
    Babatin M, Schindel L, Burak KW. Pegylated-interferon alpha 2b and ribavirin for recurrent hepatitis C after liver transplantation: From a Canadian experience to recommendations for therapy. Can J Gastroenterol 2005; 19: 359365.
  • 13
    Neuberger J. Treatment of hepatitis C virus infection in the allograft. Liver Transpl 2003; 9: S101S108.
  • 14
    Castells L, Vargas V, Allende H et al. Combined treatment with pegylated interferon (alpha-2b) and ribavirin in the acute phase of hepatitis C virus recurrence after liver transplantation. J Hepatol 2005; 43: 5359.
  • 15
    Samuel D. Hepatitis C, interferon, and risk of rejection after liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2004; 10: 868871.
  • 16
    Mukherjee S, Rogge J, Weaver L, Schafer DF. Pilot study of pegylated interferon alfa-2b and ribavirin for recurrent hepatitis C after liver transplantation. Transplant Proc 2003; 35: 30423044.
  • 17
    Dumortier J, Scoazec JY, Chevallier P, Boillot O. Treatment of recurrent hepatitis C after liver transplantation: A pilot study of peginterferon alfa-2b and ribavirin combination. J Hepatol 2004; 40: 669674.
  • 18
    Roche B, Samuel D. Treatment of hepatitis B and C after liver transplantation. Part 2, hepatitis C. Transpl Int 2005; 17: 759766.
  • 19
    Zeuzem S, Feinman SV, Rasenack J et al. Peginterferon alfa-2a in patients with chronic hepatitis C. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 16661672.
  • 20
    Heathcote EJ, Shiffman ML, Cooksley WG et al. Peginterferon alfa-2a in patients with chronic hepatitis C and cirrhosis. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 16731680.
  • 21
    Lindsay KL, Trepo C, Heintges T et al. A randomized, double-blind trial comparing pegylated interferon alfa-2b to interferon alfa-2b as initial treatment for chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 2001; 34: 395403.
  • 22
    Bruchfeld A, Lindahl K, Stahle L, Soderberg M, Schvarcz R. Interferon and ribavirin treatment in patients with hepatitis C-associated renal disease and renal insufficiency. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2003; 18: 15731580.
  • 23
    Lindahl K, Schvarcz R, Bruchfeld A, Stahle L. Evidence that plasma concentration rather than dose per kilogram body weight predicts ribavirin-induced anaemia. J Viral Hepat 2004; 11: 8487.
  • 24
    Ishak K, Baptista A, Bianchi L et al. Histological grading and staging of chronic hepatitis. J Hepatol 1995; 22: 696699.
  • 25
    Lam NP, Neumann AU, Gretch DR, Wiley TE, Perelson AS, Layden TJ. Dose-dependent acute clearance of hepatitis C genotype 1 virus with interferon alfa. Hepatology 1997; 26: 226231.
  • 26
    Bedossa P, Poynard T. An algorithm for the grading of activity in chronic hepatitis C. The METAVIR Cooperative Study Group. Hepatology 1996; 24: 289293.
  • 27
    Chalasani N, Manzarbeitia C, Ferenci P et al. Peginterferon alfa-2a for hepatitis C after liver transplantation: Two randomized, controlled trials. Hepatology 2005; 41: 289298.
  • 28
    Shergill AK, Khalili M, Straley S et al. Applicability, tolerability and efficacy of preemptive antiviral therapy in hepatitis C-infected patients undergoing liver transplantation. Am J Transplant 2005; 5: 118124.
  • 29
    Zeuzem S, Schmidt JM, Lee JH, Von Wagner M, Teuber G, Roth WK. Hepatitis C virus dynamics in vivo: effect of ribavirin and interferon alfa on viral turnover. Hepatology 1998; 28: 245252.
  • 30
    Tsubota A, Arase Y, Someya T et al. Early viral kinetics and treatment outcome in combination of high-dose interferon induction vs. pegylated interferon plus ribavirin for naive patients infected with hepatitis C virus of genotype 1b and high viral load. J Med Virol 2005; 75: 2734.
  • 31
    Enomoto M, Nishiguchi S, Kohmoto M et al. Effects of ribavirin combined with interferon-alpha 2b on viral kinetics during first 12 weeks of treatment in patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 1 and high baseline viral loads. J Viral Hepat 2004; 11: 448454.
  • 32
    Zeuzem S, Herrmann E, Lee JH et al. Viral kinetics in patients with chronic hepatitis C treated with standard or peginterferon alpha2a. Gastroenterology 2001; 120: 14381447.
  • 33
    Charlton M, Seaberg E, Wiesner R et al. Predictors of patient and graft survival following liver transplantation for hepatitis C. Hepatology 1998; 28: 823830.
  • 34
    Gane EJ, Maertens G, Ducatteeuw A et al. Antibodies to hepatitis C virus envelope proteins correlate with hepatitis C viraemia after liver transplantation. Transplantation 1999; 67: 7884.
  • 35
    Neumann AU, Lam NP, Dahari H et al. Differences in viral dynamics between genotypes 1 and 2 of hepatitis C virus. J Infect Dis 2000; 182: 2835.
  • 36
    Mulhall BP, Younossi Z. Impact of adherence on the outcome of antiviral therapy for chronic hepatitis C. J Clin Gastroenterol 2005; 39 (1 Suppl.): S23S27.
  • 37
    Ahmad J, Dodson SF, Demetris AJ, Fung JJ, Shakil AO. Recurrent hepatitis C after liver transplantation: A nonrandomized trial of interferon alfa alone versus interferon alfa and ribavirin. Liver Transpl 2001; 7: 863869.
  • 38
    Alberti AB, Belli LS, Airoldi A et al. Combined therapy with interferon and low-dose ribavirin in posttransplantation recurrent hepatitis C: A pragmatic study. Liver Transpl 2001; 7: 870876.
  • 39
    Gopal DV, Rabkin JM, Berk BS et al. Treatment of progressive hepatitis C recurrence after liver transplantation with combination interferon plus ribavirin. Liver Transpl 2001; 7: 181190.
  • 40
    Firpi RJ, Abdelmalek MF, Soldevila-Pico C et al. Combination of interferon alfa-2b and ribavirin in liver transplant recipients with histological recurrent hepatitis C. Liver Transpl 2002; 8: 10001006.
  • 41
    Lavezzo B, Franchello A, Smedile A et al. Treatment of recurrent hepatitis C in liver transplants: Efficacy of a six versus a twelve month course of interferon alfa 2b with ribavirin. J Hepatol 2002; 37: 247252.
  • 42
    Shakil AO, McGuire B, Crippin J et al. A pilot study of interferon alfa and ribavirin combination in liver transplant recipients with recurrent hepatitis C. Hepatology 2002; 36: 12531258.
  • 43
    Samuel D, Bizollon T, Feray C et al. Interferon-alpha 2b plus ribavirin in patients with chronic hepatitis C after liver transplantation: A randomized study. Gastroenterology 2003; 124: 642650.
  • 44
    Berenguer M, Prieto M, Palau A et al. Recurrent hepatitis C genotype 1b following liver transplantation: Treatment with combination interferon-ribavirin therapy. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 16: 12071212.
  • 45
    Giostra E, Kullak-Ublick GA, Keller W et al. Ribavirin/interferon-alpha sequential treatment of recurrent hepatitis C after liver transplantation. Transpl Int 2004; 17: 169176.
  • 46
    Mukherjee S, Lyden E, McCashland TM, Schafer DF. Interferon alpha 2b and ribavirin for the treatment of recurrent hepatitis C after liver transplantation: Cohort study of 38 patients. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005; 20: 198203.
  • 47
    Abdelmalek MF, Firpi RJ, Soldevila-Pico C et al. Sustained viral response to interferon and ribavirin in liver transplant recipients with recurrent hepatitis C. Liver Transpl 2004; 10: 199207.
  • 48
    Stravitz RT, Shiffman ML, Sanyal AJ et al. Effects of interferon treatment on liver histology and allograft rejection in patients with recurrent hepatitis C following liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2004; 10: 850858.