Enhancing Current Human Immunodeficiency Virus/hepatitis B and Human Immunodeficiency Virus/hepatitis C Virus Co-Infection Management
Zheping Huang,Dabiao Chen,Zhiliang Gao,Bingliang Lin
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/cm9.0000000000001149
2020-01-01
Abstract:To the Editor: Chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is common (7.4%) among people living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLWH) globally, with the highest prevalence rate being reported in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia.[1] Perinatal and horizontal transmission is the major route of HBV infection in these regions. However, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/HBV co-infection were more commonly seen among men who have sex with men or injecting drug users in developed countries. On the other hand, the hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody was found in 6.2% of PLWH, meaning an estimate of 2.3 million out of 36.7 million PLWH globally have serological evidence of past or present HCV co-infection.[1] PLWH with HBV or HCV co-infection is more likely to develop chronic hepatitis infection, liver fibrosis, cirrhosis, end-stage liver disease (ESLD), and hepatocellular carcinoma. They also have a significantly greater risk of all-cause mortality, with ESLD being an important cause of death. Antiretroviral therapy (ART) with activity against both HIV and HBV significantly improves clinical outcomes of HBV co-infected PLWH. The approval of direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs) improves treatment uptake and HCV cure among HCV and HIV/HCV co-infected patients. However, effective HIV/HBV suppression and HCV eradication did not close the morbidity and mortality gaps fully between co-infected patients and HIV mono-infected patients. In this correspondence, we will discuss ways to improve the management of HIV/HBV and HIV/HCV co-infection. Considering the overlapping transmission pathways, HBV and HCV co-infections are routinely screened before initiating ART in PLWH. However, HIV screening in HBV or HCV patients are often omitted. Lamivudine (3TC), emtricitabine (FTC), tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) are active nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) against both HBV and HIV. Entecavir is a nucleoside analog with weak anti-HIV activity. Failure to identify HIV co-infection in HBV patients will exposure HIV to monotherapy, and subsequently, cultivate emergent NRTI resistance. Besides, screening HIV in HBV or HCV patients provides an opportunity to diagnose and manage the infection at an earlier stage. Thus, routine HIV screening is strongly recommended among newly diagnosed HBV and HCV patients. TAF is a new antiviral active NRTI against both HIV and HBV. It is a prodrug that can efficiently deliver tenofovir-diphosphate (TFV-DP) to peripheral blood mononuclear cells and hepatocytes. This results in a lower plasma TFV-DP concentration compared to TDF, and hence, reduces the dosage required and associated toxicities. The study showed that in stable HBV co-infected PLWH, switching from TDF-based to TAF-based ART regimens maintained high levels of HBV suppression with a good safety profile. With the recent introduction of TAF, it will be interesting to see whether expanding the use of TAF in HBV co-infected PLWH will translate into significant long-term benefits. In order to find out the optimal ART regimen in HIV/HBV co-infection, Hasifa Nampala et al[2] developed a mathematical model that simulates the therapeutic and toxic effect of currently used ART options. FTC, 3TC, and TDF were studied as the NRTI backbone. They were combined with either efavirenz (EFV) or nevirapine (NVP) in non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based regimen, or with boosted atazanavir or lopinavir in protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimen. This mathematical model concluded that FTC, TDF, and EFV was the optimal combination with maximal efficacy and minimal side effects in managing HIV/HBV co-infection. In the era when HCV was treated by interferon, HIV/HCV co-infected patients have a higher proportion of chronic HCV course, lower treatment uptake, lower spontaneous clearance rates, more rapid progression to fibrosis and cirrhosis, and more liver-related deaths. DAAs, which target at specific steps of the HCV replication cycle, represents a major advancement in managing HCV. DAAs achieve >95% of the cure rate with a low adverse events rate. Similar results were seen in patients with advanced or decompensated cirrhosis. Modern HCV treatment guidelines no longer regard HIV/HCV co-infected patients as a special population. They recommend the same indications, therapeutic options, treatment duration, and follow-up guidance. Nevertheless, treating physicians should be aware of the drug-drug interactions between ART drugs and DAAs. Mathieu Chalouni et al[3] compared the risk of several clinical events in HIV/HCV co-infected patients with those infected by HCV alone. After DAAs treatment, two arms showed similar sustained virologic response rates and risk of liver-related events and deaths. However, HIV/HCV co-infected subjects had a higher risk of all-cause mortality, non-liver-related mortality, and non-liver-related cancers. The higher risk of all-cause death and non-liver-related cancers in HIV/HCV co-infected patients can be explained by chronic inflammation and immune system dysregulation due to HIV infection and high-risk behaviors such as tobacco smoking and alcohol consumption in the co-infected subjects. Based on the current practice guidelines, integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTI)-based regimens are among the first-line therapies for treatment-naïve PLWH. A prospective, observational study evaluated the hepatic safety profile of raltegravir (RAL) in PLWH with chronic hepatitis C.[4] HCV co-infection was the only independent variable associated with any degree of hepatotoxicity on RAL. The rate of liver enzyme elevations in patients on RAL was lower than those treated with PIs or NNRTIs.[4] In the SAILING study, PLWH co-infected with HBV or HCV were more likely to experience liver enzyme flares attributed to immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome at week 24, particularly when HBV therapy was not co-administered.[4] PLWH co-infected with HBV or HCV are at markedly increased risk for ESLD compared with those monoinfected by HIV. Since the introduction of combination ART, morbidity, and mortality were significantly reduced in PLWH. Klein et al[5] looked into data on ESLD across different ART eras, with a focus on the risk of ESLD in PLWH co-infected with HCV or HBV. They found that despite the increasing use of ART, no clear ESLD risk reduction was seen over 15 years. One potential reason behind the sustained high ESLD rates was the lack of effective therapy for HBV or HCV. While the importance of diagnosing, staging, and monitoring of HBV or HCV co-infection could not be overstated, expanding the use of DAAs and tenofovir-based regimens for HCV and HBV co-infected PLWH should also be prioritized. NVP, EFV, and boosted PIs are hepatotoxic and, hence, should be avoided in HIV/HBV or HIV/HCV co-infected patients with advanced liver disease. INSTI-based regimens have a better safety profile than NNRTI-based or PI-based regimens. However, clinical data using the INSTI-based regimen to treat co-infected patients with decompensated liver disease are still scarce. Patients of advanced liver disease should be closely monitored when treated with INSTI-based regimens. Strong progress has been made in the treatment of HIV, HBV, and HCV infection in recent years. Modern antiviral or antiretroviral regimens significantly improved treatment outcomes of HIV/HBV and HIV/HCV co-infection. However, more efforts are needed to further reduce the mortality rate difference between mono-infected and co-infected patients. Patients should be closely monitored even after HBV and HIV replication are inhibited, or HCV is eradicated. Funding This study was supported by the National Science and Technology Major Project (Nos. 2018ZX10302204 and 2017ZX10203201003). Conflicts of interest None.