The quest for safe and effective treatments of chronic hepatitis C in patients with kidney impairment
S. De nicola,A. Aghemo
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/liv.13123
2016-06-01
Abstract:Directly acting antivirals (DAAs) against the Hepatitis C virus (HCV) have dramatically reshaped the field of hepatology in the last 5 years (1). Nowadays, at least six combinations of DAAs are able to offer patients with HCV > 90% chance of achieving a sustained virological response (SVR), regardless of host (fibrosis stage, age, gender), viral (HCV genotype or viral load) and environmental factors (drug abuse, concomitant use of immunosuppressive regimens) (2–4). Thus, the concept of difficult to cure subgroups of patients, something that was common in the Interferon era, has now been almost completely superseded at the clinical level. However, some areas of uncertainty regarding the safety and the efficacy of DAAs still persists, the reason is the relative lack of patients with significant comorbidities enrolled in the Phase III clinical trials as well as the peculiar pharmacological properties of some classes of DAAs. One of the main priorities for clinical research in the HCV field is unravelling the safety and efficacy of DAAs in the treatment of patients with HCV and concomitant kidney function impairment. This clinical need is not only determined by the relative lack of data due to strict inclusion/exclusion criteria on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) that have excluded these patients from Phase III RCTs, but also because HCV infection per se can lead to kidney function deterioration (5). HCV can alter kidney functionality both through mixed cryoglobulinaemia vasculitis, a small vessel vasculitis that can lead to membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis, or through non cryoglobulinemic kidney involvement that can occur as a consequence of inflammation determined by HCV. Last, patients on haemodialysis, or those who have undergone kidney transplantation (KT), show high prevalence of HCV infection mainly as a consequence of increased risk of nosocomial transmission in dialysis facilities. This dangerous liaison between HCV and kidney function can be wiped out by achieving an SVR, since, as shown in the IFN era, viral eradication reduces the risk of kidney failure and improves graft survival in KT patients (6–8). This theoretical benefit has been hampered by the fact that the anti-HCV NS5B polymerase inhibitor sofosbuvir and its circulating metabolite GS-331007 are cleared by the kidney. The pharmacokinetics of sofosbuvir in HCV negative subjects with severe renal impairment (eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m) following a single 400 mg dose show a sofosbuvir and GS-331007 AUC0-inf 171% and 451% higher compared to that reported in healthy volunteers. In subjects with end-stage renal disease the AUC0-inf of GS-331007 could not be reliably determined, with data indicating at least 10-fold and 20-fold higher exposure to GS-331007, when sofosbuvir was administered 1 h before or 1 h after haemodialysis respectively (9). For this reason, international guidelines as well as the product label state that no formal recommendation on the dosing of sofosbuvir can be made in eGFR<30 ml/min and that the safety of sofosbuvir has not been assessed in this subgroup of patients (3, 10). This is highly relevant from a clinical point of view as sofosbuvir, a pangenotypic DAA with high genetic barrier to resistance, is the backbone of any therapy against HCV genotype 2, 3, 5 and 6 while together with the NS5A inhibitors ledipasvir or daclatasvir is one of the optimal regimens for HCV genotype 1 and 4. Luckily, for patients with HCV-1 this therapeutic conundrum has been bypassed by the availability of non sofosbuvir containing regimens active against this genotype. The combination of the protease inhibitor (PI) Grazoprevir and the NS5A inhibitor elbasvir as well as the multiDAA regimen of paritaprevir (PI)/ritonavir/ombitasvir (NS5A) plus dasabuvir (NS5B non nucleoside polymerase inhibitor) have both been formally studied in HCV-1 patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 4–5 (eGFR <30 ml/min or haemodialysis). In the C-surfer study, 115/122 (94%) HCV-1 patients who received 12 weeks of grazoprevir plus elbasvir ultimately achieved an SVR (11). Both drugs are mostly excreted in the faeces and thus showed no significant safety signals (SAE < 1%) in this population of patients with CKD. In the Ruby-I study, 20 HCV-1 patients with CKD stage received treatment with paritaprevir/ritonavir/ombitasvir plus dasabuvir for 12 weeks, in the 13 HCV-1a patients, low-dose ribavirin (200 mg/day) was added per label. Overall, an SVR was achieved in 90% of the patients (85% in HCV-1a), no significant side effects were reported, although in eight of 13 HCV-1a patients, ribavirin had to be discontinued due to anaemia (12). Altogether, these results demonstrate that optimal therapeutic alternatives exist for HCV-1 patients with stage 4-5 CKD, however, it is important to underline