Journal Home
Search for

Volume 38, Issue 1, Pages 32-38 (January 2007)


View previous. 7 of 18 View next.

Efficacy and safety of peg-IFN alfa-2a with ribavirin for the treatment of HCV/HIV coinfected patients who failed previous IFN based therapy

Maribel Rodríguez-TorresacCorresponding Author Informationemail address, José F. Rodríguez-Orengob, Carlos F. Ríos-Bedoyac, Alberto Fernández-Carbiad, Elsa González-Lassallea, Rosa Salgado-Mercadoa, Acisclo M. Marxuach-Cuétaraa

Received 30 December 2005; received in revised form 20 June 2006; accepted 19 September 2006. published online 25 October 2006.

Abstract 

Background

Interferon (IFN) regimens for HCV treatment are less effective in HCV/HIV-coinfected patients. There are no effective treatments for patients who fail IFN therapies. We examined the safety and efficacy of peginterferon alfa-2a (peg-IFNα-2a) plus ribavirin (RBV) in 41HCV/HIV-coinfected patients non-responsive to prior IFN treatment.

Methods

Patients received peg-IFNα-2a (180mg/week) plus RBV (800mg/day) for 24 weeks (n=41). At week 24, patients with non-detectable HCV RNA or ≥2-log decrease from baseline, received peg-IFNα-2a (180mg/week) plus RBV (800mg/day) for 24 weeks further. Patients not responding to treatment at week 24 were discontinued.

Results

Intent to treat (ITT) sustained viral response (SVR) was 21.9%. Patients who received at least 24 weeks of peg-IFNα-2a plus RBV treatment (n=35), SVR rates were 25.7%. SVR was associated with significant improvements in liver histology grade (p=0.02), stage (p=0.02), and fibrosis progression rate (FPR) (p=0.03). Patients that failed to achieve SVR had statistically significant decreases in grade (p=0.09) and FPR (p=0.01).

Conclusion

peg-IFNα-2a plus RBV is effective and safe to achieve SVR in HCV/HIV coinfected patients non-responsive to prior IFN treatment. Patients that achieve SVR have significant improvements in liver histology parameters. In patients that do not achieve SVR there are histological benefits beyond virological response that suggest that peg-IFNα-2a+RBV therapy may decrease risk of progression to end stage liver disease.

Article Outline

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Methods

2.1. Patient selection

2.2. Study design

2.3. Assessment of efficacy

2.4. Assessment of liver histology

2.5. Assessment of safety

2.6. Statistical analysis

3. Results

3.1. Baseline characteristics

3.2. Efficacy results

3.3. Histological response

3.4. Safety

4. Discussion

Acknowledgment

References

Copyright

1. Introduction 

return to Article Outline

Infection with hepatitis C virus (HCV) is the most common form of chronic hepatitis and blood-borne infection in the United States (Alter et al., 1999). HCV is now considered the leading cause of chronic liver disease in the United States, affecting nearly 4 million Americans and about 170 million people worldwide (CDC, 2004, WHO, 1998, Zein, 2003). Infection with HCV is common in patients infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), with about 16–25% of HIV-infected individuals estimated to be coinfected with HCV (Brau et al., 2002, Klein et al., 2003, Sherman et al., 2002). Coinfection with HIV has an adverse effect on the outcome of HCV infection resulting in a faster progression of liver fibrosis, with higher incidences of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (Benhamou et al., 1999, Benhamou et al., 2001, Di Martino et al., 2001, Martínez-Sierra et al., 2003). It has thus become of increasing importance to treat HCV in HCV/HIV-coinfected patients.

Treatment with pegylated interferons plus ribavirin (RBV) has become the standard of care for HCV infected patients including HIV/HCV coinfected patients (Alberti et al., 2005, Fried et al., 2002, Hadziyannis et al., 2004, Manns et al., 2001, Tien, 2005). Results of the APRICOT trial, the largest global study in HCV/HIV-coinfection, reported an overall SVR of 40% in patients treated with peg-IFN α-2a and RBV (Torriani et al., 2004). These results are lower than the 54–62% SVR rates observed in the HCV-monoinfected population (Fried et al., 2002, Hadziyannis et al., 2004, Manns et al., 2001). HCV-monoinfected patients who do not respond to treatment with interferon (IFN) or the combination of IFN plus RBV are particularly difficult to treat (Moskovitz et al., 2003, Poynard et al., 2003a, Thuluvath et al., 2003). HCV/HIV-coinfected population that are non-responders to prior IFN based therapy, have the added complications of HIV+ status: increased HCV viral load, increased prevalence of severe fibrosis and cirrhosis, and issues of drug toxicity (Bonacini et al., 1999, Cribier et al., 1995, Laskus et al., 1998, Sherman et al., 1993). There have been limited reports of clinical trials for treatment of HCV/HIV-coinfected patients who were non-responders to prior treatment with IFN or IFN plus RBV.

In this study, we examined the safety and efficacy of treatment with peginterferon alfa-2a and RBV in HIV/HCV coinfected patients who were non-responders to treatment with IFN based therapies.

2. Methods 

return to Article Outline

2.1. Patient selection 

Adult patients (>21 years old) with chronic hepatitis C defined as, detectable plasma HCV RNA and stable HIV infection were enrolled in this study. Patients had to have a liver biopsy (unless contraindicated), within 6 months of enrollment consistent with chronic HCV infection. Cirrhotic patients were restricted to no more than 20% of enrolled patients. Patients had to have plasma HIV RNA<25,000copies/mL, CD4+ cell counts >200cells/μL, and be in stable antiretroviral therapy for at least 4 weeks prior to enrollment. Patients with CD4 count200cells/μL but >100cells/μL could participate if they had HIV RNA<5000copies/mL. All patients were non-responders to prior therapy with IFN or IFN plus RBV for a minimum period of 24 weeks, defined as showing no virological response (HCV RNA) at end of treatment, nor at any other point during treatment. (No relapsers or breakthrough relapsers were enrolled in the study.)

Patients were excluded from participation if they had active opportunistic diseases, other causes of chronic liver disease, absolute neutrophil count<1250/μL, platelet count<65,000/μL, Hgb<10mg/dL, serum albumin<3.0gm/dL, bilirubin>2.5g/dL, prolongation of prothrombin time greater than 4s ULN, or uncontrolled thyroid disease. Other exclusion criteria included decompensated liver disease, defined as Child-Pugh other than Grade A; severe pulmonary, cardiac, psychiatric, or ophthalmic disease; history of transplantation; or active history of drug or alcohol abuse. Patients with incomplete or complete cirrhosis of the liver were excluded if their serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels were >200ng/mL. For inclusion, cirrhotic patients with AFP>50μg/mL were required to have a CT scan, MRI or sonogram negative for hepatocellular carcinoma.

All patients gave written informed consent, and were required to use effective contraception throughout the study period. The Institutional Review Board of the Medical Sciences Campus, University of Puerto Rico, approved the study.

2.2. Study design 

Patients received subcutaneous weekly injections of 180μg peg-IFNα-2a plus RBV (800mg/day) for 24 weeks. Patients who had virological response, defined as undetectable HCV RNA (<600copies/mL) or a decrease of at least 2-log from baseline at week 24, were treated with peg-IFNα-2a (180μg/week) plus RBV (800mg/day) for an additional 24 weeks. Patients who did not achieve viral response at week 24 were discontinued from treatment.

2.3. Assessment of efficacy 

The primary end point of the study was sustained viral response (SVR), defined as undetectable HCV RNA titer (<600copies/mL, the Roche Amplicor HCV Monitor test v 2.0) at study week 72. Changes in HCV RNA were also assessed during the course of treatment at weeks 12, 24, and 48.

2.4. Assessment of liver histology 

Histology activity indexes (HAI) was obtained using Ishak score necroinflamation, grade (0–18) and fibrosis stage (0–6) by a single experienced pathologist (AF). To be acceptable for interpretation, biopsies had to be ≥25mm long and have no less than 15 portal spaces. Fibrosis progression rate (FPR) was calculated by the ratio of Ishak fibrosis stage score at baseline and the estimated duration of HCV infection in years and reported as IshakF/years. Post-treatment FPR was calculated by subtracting the Ishak fibrosis stage score at week 72 (post-treatment) biopsy from baseline (pre-treatment) and dividing between the interval of time (years) between biopsies. Ishak necroinflamation grade, fibrosis stage and FPR mean scores were determined at baseline and week 72. The percentage (%) of patients with Ishak stage score changes ≥2 points between baseline and week 72 was also obtained.

2.5. Assessment of safety 

Laboratory measurements during the 48 weeks of treatment and 24 weeks of follow up, included hematology, blood chemistry, thyroid function, CD4+ cell counts, and HIV and HCV RNA viral loads. Post-treatment liver biopsies at or after week 72 were obtained from all patients who agreed to this procedure. All adverse events (AEs), concomitant medications, alterations in antiretroviral treatment, concomitant illnesses or opportunistic diseases, vital signs, and physical examination were assessed at each study visit. All AEs were graded for severity using World Health Organization (WHO) parameters. The total number of AEs, AEs requiring dose reductions, withdrawals, lost-to-follow, and discontinuations were obtained.

2.6. Statistical analysis 

The data was analyzed using Stata version 7.0 (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA). The Mann–Whitney test was used for analysis of continuous variables and χ2 (Fisher's exact test) for comparison of group frequencies. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare values at baseline and week 72 for sustained viral responders (SVR) and non-responders. p-Values less than or equal to 0.05 were considered significant.

3. Results 

return to Article Outline

3.1. Baseline characteristics 

Baseline characteristics of the population at baseline are shown in Table 1. Initially this study was designed as a randomized pilot trial of peg-IFN alfa-2a monotherapy versus peg-IFN alfa-2a plus RBV combination. The reason for the inclusion of a monotherapy arm was concerns about drug interactions of HAART and RBV, and mitochondrial toxicity. As soon it was demonstrated that monotherapy was suboptimal to achieve SVR, and that HIV/HCV coinfected patients could safely be treated with RBV, the study was modified to open label combination treatment. Of the 76 patients enrolled in this study, 41 were assigned to combination treatment with peg-IFNα-2a and 800mg RBV daily and 35 patients were randomized to peg-IFN alfa 2a monotherapy and excluded from this analysis. In the combination cohort, most of the patients were males, risk factor for HCV infection was IDU, with mean age 47 years and mean HCV duration of infection of 21 years. Mean log10 HCV RNA was 5.89 and HCV genotypes in the majority were types 1 and 4 (80.4%). Patients had HIV disease under control, with a mean log10 HIV RNA of 2.82, and mean CD4+ counts was 555cells/μL. The distribution of non-responders was 60% to IFN monotherapy and 40% to IFN plus RBV. Patients had mean Ishak necroinflamation grade 7.00 (S.D. 3.64) and fibrosis stage 3.49 (S.D. 1.70) scores at baseline. Mean FPR was 0.44IshF/years (S.D. 0.45) and 14.6% of the patients were cirrhotic. At baseline, 34 patients or 82.9%, were in antiretroviral treatment (ART), with only seven (17%) without treatment because high CD4 levels or long-term non-progression. The majority of the patients were using highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) combinations (28% or 82%) versus (6% or 18%) only in nucleoside transcriptase inhibitors (NTI) combinations of zidovudine/stavudine with lamiduvine. The protease inhibitors used were nelfinavir 21/75%, indinavir 5/17.8%, and ritonavir and saquinavir 1% or 3.6% each. Almost all patients were receiving zidovudine/stavudine plus lamiduvine in the HAART combination.

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics (intent-to-treat population)

CharacteristicN=41
Sex
Males, n (%)35 (85%)
Females, n (%)6 (15%)
Age (years), mean (S.D.)47.0 (8.7)
HCV duration (years), mean (S.D.)21.0 (10)
logHCV RNA (copies/mL), mean (S.D.)5.89 (0.75)
logHIV (copies/mL), mean (S.D.)2.82 (0.58)
CD4+ (cell count/μL), mean (S.D.)555 (324)
ALT (IU/L) (S.D.)98 (62.2)
Risk of infection
IVDU, n (%)25 (61%)
Non-IVDU, n (%)16 (39%)
HCV genotype
1 and 4, n (%)33 (80.4%)
2 and 3, n (%)4 (9.8%)
Not known, n (%)4 (9.8%)
Prior treatment
IFN monotherapy, n (%)24 (58%)
IFN/RBV combination, n (%)17 (42%)

3.2. Efficacy results 

Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed SVR at week 72 of 21.9% (Fig. 1). In patients who completed at least 24 weeks of treatment, SVR was 25.7%. Eight patients were genotype 1 and one patient was genotype 2. Five were previous non-responders to IFN monotherapy and four to prior combination treatment.


View full-size image.

Fig. 1. Virological response rates at different weeks after initiation of treatment. At week 12, the virological response was determined by a 2-log HCV RNA decrease from baseline. For weeks 24, 48, and 72 the virological response was assigned to patients with undetectable plasma HCV RNA. SVR is sustained viral response and ITT is intention to treat where discontinuation equals failure.


Early virological response (EVR), defined as undetectable or ≥2log10HCV RNA decline at week 12, was obtained in 22 patients (53.6%). Of those who achieved EVR, eight patients achieved SVR at week 72. Thus, the positive predictive value of EVR for achieving SVR was 8/22 or 36.6%. Of the 19 patients who did not achieve EVR, only one (5.2%) achieved SVR. Thus, the overall negative predictive value of EVR for achieving SVR was 18/19 or 95.2%. The percent of relapsers was 40% (6/15). All relapsers were documented at week 72.

3.3. Histological response 

We obtained liver biopsies from 41/41 (100%) patients at baseline. At week 72, 22/41 or 54% of the patients agreed to have post-treatment liver biopsy. There was a statistical significance decrease in mean grade, and FPR between baseline and follow-up biopsies (Ishak grade score: −1.86, p=0.01 and FPR: −1.46, p=0.0005). When patients were classified according to virological response (i.e. those with SVR versus non-responder), we found that both groups of patients showed improvement in histological parameters at the end of follow-up (Fig. 2). However, patients who achieved SVR showed significantly greater improvements in mean grade (−3.3, p=0.02), stage score (−1.2, p=0.02), and FPR (−2.3, p=0.03) compared to baseline values. Non-responders also shown statistically significant improvements in grade (−1.3, p=0.09) and FPR (−1.2, p=0.01) from baseline.


View full-size image.

Fig. 2. Effect of treatment on liver histology according to virological response at using the Ishak grade (white area), Ishak stage (gray area), and fibrosis progression rate (FPR) calculated as the ratio of Ishak stage between the estimated duration of HCV infection and is defined as Ishak/years.


3.4. Safety 

There were a total of 165 adverse events with the majority of AE's those commonly associated with IFN-based treatment (Table 2). There were 24 serious AE's in 17 patients, all previously reported complications of IFN-RBV treatment as bone marrow toxicity, neuropathy, lipoatrophy and skin diseases aggravation.

Table 2.

Most frequently reported adverse events

Adverse eventN=41
Myalgias/artralgias31
Flu symptoms30
Mygraine/headache17
Weight loss
>5%14 (34%)
>10%8 (19%)
>15%2 (5%)
Anemia15 (37%)
Neutropenia16 (39%)
Depression7 (17%)
Thrombocytopenia2
Gastrointestinal6
Sinusitis/infections/bronchitis/pneumonia2
Bloody oral secretions/oral herpes/dental1
Swelling left leg/arm/ankle1
Hepatic decompensation (increased bilirubin)2
Psoriasis/herpes zoster/pruritus2
Neuropathy/facial palsy1
Lipodystrophy worsening1
Hypothyroidism1
Hypertension0
Hematuria/urinary symptoms1
Fracture right leg0
Diabetes (uncontrolled)2
Decreased compliance1
Lipidemia2
Total165

Table 3 shows all discontinuations and drug modifications. Anemia and neutropenia was documented frequently, and required dose modifications, and in some patients, the concomitant use of growth factors. In total, 26/41 or 63% required dose modifications due to laboratory abnormalities. Six patients were treated with epoetin alfa, three with filgastrim and one with both drugs. Most of the drug dose modifications occurred during the first 24 weeks of treatment. The PI used her criteriae to use growth factors, when patient had 2 weeks dose of study drugs reduced or withhold, or unable to re-challenge full dose of RBV. In some cases availability of growth factors precluded its use. Although 6/41 or 14.6% were cirrhotic no patient experienced hepatic decompensation or lactic acidosis. There were no deaths in study, and all adverse events resolved with medical intervention, or after study drugs were discontinued.

Table 3.

Discontinuations, dose modifications and reasons

N=41
Discontinuations
Lost to follow up4
Adverse events uncompliance1
Total5
Dose modifications
Adverse events0
Lab. abnormalities (26)
Neutropenia10
Thrombocytopenia2
Anemia13
Other1
Total26

4. Discussion 

return to Article Outline

Combination therapy with peginterferon and RBV is the current standard of care for HCV-monoinfected individuals. Non-responders to prior IFN treatment are a therapeutic challenge, and no standard of care is available. Multiple studies with IFN based therapies have been reported with limited success (Moskovitz et al., 2003, Poynard et al., 2003a, Thuluvath et al., 2003). There are scarce reports of treatment of HCV/HIV-coinfected patients that were non-responsive to prior IFN-based regimens, one of the most difficult to treat subsets of HCV-infected patients. We demonstrated that SVR rate of 21.9% can be achieved in patients treated for 48 weeks with peg-IFNα-2a plus RBV, an efficacy rate that is superior to those reported for treatment of naïve coinfected patients with standard IFNα2b plus RBV (Laguno et al., 2004, Rockstroh et al., 2002). This efficacy result is comparable to a report of treatment of Peg IFN alfa 2b and RBV in coinfected relapsers and non-responders (Myers et al., 2004). Myers et al. reported a 16% SVR in coinfected relapsers and non-responders to prior IFN therapy, in an immunocompetent coinfected cohort of 32 patients. Most of the SVR were patients with genotypes 2, 3 (29%) and 4 (33%), whereas, the response in patients with genotype 1 was the lowest (9%) (Myers et al., 2004). In our study, eight patients with genotypes 1 achieved SVR (89% of all SVR) and all patients were true non-responders to prior IFN therapy, a more difficult to treat subset of patients than relapsers. These results are comparable and even superior, to the high dose cohort of the RENEW study on HCV non-responders to prior IFN based treatment (Gross et al., 2005). The RENEW study showed a 17% SVR in patients that received peg-IFN alfa-2b 3.0mg/kg versus 12% in the 1.5mg/kg arm (p=0.03).

The efficacy results may have been affected by use of sub-optimal doses of RBV (800mg/day) in patients weighing more than 145 pounds (28/41 or 68%). Use of weight based optimal RBV doses (1000–1200mg/day) have been demonstrated to result in higher efficacy rates. The recent interim results from the PRESCO study (Soriano, 2006), suggest than both Gen 1 and non-1 coinfected patients may achieve higher SVR when dosed with RBV 1000/1200mg as compared to 800mg. A greater percentage of patients in PRESCO (Gen 1), achieved >2log viral load reduction from baseline or were non-detectable at week 4 (<50IU/mL), as compared to the APRICOT results (46% versus 40% and 34% versus 13%). This same trend was seen at week 12, with 78% versus 63% achieving early virological response, and 60% versus 34% were non-detectable. The main limitation of PRESCO is the lower number of patients as compared to the large APRICOT trial.

There were also a significant number of dose modifications that may have affected ITT response rates. Many of those could have been prevented by the more aggressive use of both eritropoietin and filgastrin.

Similar to other HCV treated populations, the lack of EVR had a high negative predictive value (94.7%) for achieving SVR. Thus, a decision to discontinue HCV therapy in HCV/HIV-coinfected individuals may be made early during the course of treatment, preventing unnecessary additional adverse events, and allowing for a cost effective use of limited resources.

There have been recent reports of increased relapse rates in coinfected patients (Soriano et al., 2004). In APRICOT, relapse rate of 9% was documented in Gen 1 patients, but only 2% in those with Gen 2–3 (Torriani et al., 2004). High relapse rates, also documented in this study (40%), suggest that longer duration of treatment in coinfected patients could improve efficacy rates, especially in genotype 1 patients. Drusano and Preston reported a model to predict SVR with duration of non-detectability of HCV viremia during treatment and creatinine clearance, for genotype 1 patients (Drusano and Preston, 2004). His findings suggest that genotype 1 patients require continuous non-detectability for 36 weeks to achieve a 90% probability of SVR. There have been reports of retreatment for 48 weeks for IFN/RBV monoinfected relapsers and non-responders to IFN/RBV suggest that longer duration of treatment could improve efficacy (Enriquez et al., 2000, Teuber et al., 2003). Of interest are recent reports of longer duration of treatment with peg-IFNα-2a and RBV for patients that remain HCV RNA positive after 4 weeks of treatment, or those that are “slow responders” (Berg et al., 2004, Sanchez-Tapias et al., 2004). In these studies treatment for 72 weeks was superior to 48 weeks to achieve higher SVR and reduce relapse rate. Other strategies that show promise in improving SVR in difficult to treat patients, as the case of HCV non-responders, is the use of high dose induction regimens for the first 12 weeks of therapy with peg-IFN alfa-2a plus ribavirin (Diago et al., 2004). This same approach is under study for another difficult to treat sub group, HVL Gen 1 patients, that weight more than 85kg (Roche Laboratories, 2004). However, none of these strategies have not been tested in significant coinfected cohorts.

Patients coinfected with HIV and HCV have a more rapid FPR and a shorter time span to cirrhosis of the liver, than do patients with HCV-monoinfection (Benhamou et al., 1999, Di Martino et al., 2001). Although the use of FPR has limitations, as relying in patients recall of time of infection, and assuming linearity of progression, it is an extensively published helpful instrument. In HCV-monoinfected patients, the use of peg-IFNα-2a and RBV has been found to improve liver FPR (Poynard et al., 2002, Poynard et al., 2003b). There have been limited reports examining the impact of peg-IFNα-2a plus RBV combination therapy on histology in HCV/HIV-coinfected, whether naïve or non-responders (Di Martino et al., 2002). In this study, we demonstrated benefits in liver histology from treatment with peg-IFNα-2a plus RBV. In addition to the statistically significant improvements in all histological parameters in patients who achieved SVR, there was a statistically significant benefit in FPR in patients who did not achieve SVR. Clearly, the benefits of this treatment regimen in this population extend beyond virological response, a finding important for patients who have failed all available therapeutic alternatives and have an increased risk of progression to end stage liver disease. This finding suggests that peg-IFNα-2a and RBV treatment may be considered as maintenance in this population, to decrease risk of progression to end stage liver disease.

The major limitation of this study is the reduced number of subjects. The small number of patients with genotypes 2 or 3 prevented analysis of response along genotypes. Also, with this small cohort, a difference in efficacy among prior NR to IFN versus IFN/RBV was not demonstrated. Histology data is also limited by the reduced number of biopsies at week 72. However to our knowledge, this is the largest report of coinfected non-responders treated with any peg-IFN plus RBV combination.

In summary, we have found that treatment with peg-IFNα-2a plus RBV is effective and safe for management of coinfected patients who were non-responders to previous IFN-based treatment regimens. This study indicates that peg-IFNα-2a plus RBV combination therapy is suitable for HCV/HIV-coinfected patients who were non-responders to previous IFN therapy, and should be considered as another step in the learning process of treating coinfected patients. Additional studies with larger cohorts, optimal RBV treatment, higher doses of peg-IFN and/or longer duration of therapy are needed.

Acknowledgments 

return to Article Outline

This work was supported by an educational unrestricted grant from Roche Laboratories. JFR acknowledges the partial support of the following Public Health Service grants: R01 AI14941, G12RR03051, and 1P20RR11126.

References 

return to Article Outline

Alberti et al., 2005. 1.Alberti A, Clumeck N, Collins S, Gerlich W, Lundgren J, Palù G, et al. Short statement of the first European consensus conference on the treatment of chronic hepatitis B and C in HIV co-infected patients. J Hepatol. 2005;42(5):615–624. Full Text | Full-Text PDF (140 KB) | CrossRef

Alter et al., 1999. 2.Alter MJ, Kruszon-Moran D, Nainan OV, McQuillan GM, Gao F, Moyer LA, et al. The prevalence of hepatitis C virus infection in the United States 1988, through 1994. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(8):556–562. MEDLINE | CrossRef

Benhamou et al., 1999. 3.Benhamou Y, Bochet M, Di Martino V, Charlotte F, Azria F, Coutellier A, et al. Liver fibrosis progression in human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis C virus coinfected patients. Hepatology. 1999;30:1054–1058. MEDLINE | CrossRef

Benhamou et al., 2001. 4.Benhamou Y, Di Martino V, Bochet M, Colombet G, Thibault V, Liou A, et al. Factors affecting liver fibrosis in human immunodeficiency virus-and hepatitis C virus-coinfected patients: impact of protease inhibitor therapy. Hepatology. 2001;34:283–287. MEDLINE | CrossRef

Berg et al., 2004. 5.Berg T, Van Wagner M, Hinrichsen H, Heintges T, Buggisch P, Goeser T, et al. Reduction of the relative relapse rate by prolongation of the duration of a therapy with peginterferon alfa-2a plus ribavirin in patients with genotype 1 infection up to 72 weeks. In: Proceedings of the 55th Annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. 2004;.

Bonacini et al., 1999. 6.Bonacini M, Govindarajan S, Blatt JM, Schmid P, Conrad A, Lindsay KL. Patients coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis C virus demonstrate higher levels of hepatic HCV RNA. J Viral Hepat. 1999;6:203–208. MEDLINE | CrossRef

Brau et al., 2002. 7.Brau N, Bini EJ, Shahidi A, Aytaman A, Xiao P, Stancic S, et al. Prevalence of hepatitis C and coinfection with HIV among United States veterans in the New York City metropolitan area. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:2071–2078. MEDLINE | CrossRef

CDC, 2004. 8.Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2004. Website: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/C/fact.htm.

Cribier et al., 1995. 9.Cribier B, Rey D, Schmitt C, Lang JM, Kirn A, Stoll-Keller F. High hepatitis C viremia and impaired antibody response in patients coinfected with HIV. AIDS. 1995;9:1131–1136. MEDLINE

Di Martino et al., 2001. 10.Di Martino , Rufat P, Boyer N, Renard P, Degos F, Martinot-Peignoux M, et al. The influence of human immunodeficiency virus coinfection on chronic hepatitis C in injection drug users: a long-term retrospective cohort study. Hepatology. 2001;34:1193–1199. MEDLINE | CrossRef

Di Martino et al., 2002. 11.Di Martino V, Thevenot T, Boyer N, Cazals-Hatem D, Degott C, Valla D, et al. HIV co infection does not compromise liver histological response to interferon therapy in patients with chronic hepatitis C. AIDS. 2002;16:441–445. MEDLINE | CrossRef

Diago et al., 2004. 12.Diago M, Romero-Gómez M, Crespo J, et al. Peg interferon alfa-2a (40kDa) (Pegasys) and ribavirin (Copegus) in patients infected with HCV genotype 1 and who failed to respond to interferon and ribavirin: final results of the Spanish high dose induction pilot trial. Hepatology. 2004;40(Suppl. 1):389A.

Drusano and Preston, 2004. 13.Drusano GL, Preston SL. A 48-week duration of therapy with pegylated interferon alpha 2b plus ribavirin may be too short to maximize long-term response among patients infected with genotype-1 hepatitis C virus. J Infect Dis. 2004;189(6):964–970[Epub 2004 Feb 27]. MEDLINE | CrossRef

Enriquez et al., 2000. 14.Enriquez J, Gallego A, Torras X, Perez-Olmeda T, Diago M, Soriano V, et al. Retreatment for 24 vs. 48 weeks with interferon-alpha2b plus ribavirin of chronic hepatitis C patients who relapsed or did not respond to interferon alone. J Viral Hepat. 2000;7(6):403–408. MEDLINE | CrossRef

Fried et al., 2002. 15.Fried MW, Shiffman ML, Reddy KR, Smith C, Marinos G, Goncales FL, et al. Peginterferon alfa-2a plus ribavirin for chronic hepatitis C infection. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:975–982. CrossRef

Gross et al., 2005. 16.Gross , et al. Double dose Peg-interferon alfa-2a weight-based Ribavirin improves response for Interferon/Ribavirin non-responders with Hepatitis C: final results of RENEW study. San Francisco: AASLD; 2005;.

Hadziyannis et al., 2004. 17.Hadziyannis SJ, et al. Peginterferon-alpha2a and ribavirin combination therapy in chronic hepatitis C: a randomized study of treatment duration and ribavirin dose. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(5):346–355.

Klein et al., 2003. 18.Klein MB, Lalonde RG, Suissa S. The impact of hepatitis C virus coinfection on HIV progression before and after highly active antiretroviral therapy. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2003;33:365–372. MEDLINE

Laguno et al., 2004. 19.Laguno M, Murillas J, Blanco JL, Martinez E, Miquel R, Sanchez-Tapias JM, et al. Peginterferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin compared with interferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin for treatment of HIV/HCV co-infected patients. AIDS. 2004;18:F27–F36. MEDLINE

Laskus et al., 1998. 20.Laskus T, Radkowski M, Wang LF, Vargas H, Rakela J. The presence of active hepatitis C virus replication in lymphoid tissue in patients coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1. J Infect Dis. 1998;178:1189–1192. MEDLINE | CrossRef

Manns et al., 2001. 21.Manns MP, McHutchison JG, Gordon SC, Rustgi VK, Shiffman M, Reindollar R, 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;358:958–965. Abstract | Full Text | Full-Text PDF (110 KB) | CrossRef

Martínez-Sierra et al., 2003. 22.Martínez-Sierra C, Arizcorreta A, Diaz F, Roldan R, Martin-Herrera L, Perez-Guzman E, et al. Progression of chronic hepatitis C to liver fibrosis and cirrhosis in patients coinfected with hepatitis C virus and human immunodeficiency virus. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;36:491–498. CrossRef

Moskovitz et al., 2003. 23.Moskovitz DN, Manoharan P, Heathcote EJ. High dose consensus interferon in non-responders to interferon alpha-2b and ribavirin with chronic hepatitis C. Can J Gastroenterol. 2003;17:479–482. MEDLINE

Myers et al., 2004. 24.Myers RP, Benhamou Y, Bochet M, Thibault V, Mehri D, Poynard T. Pegylated interferon alpha 2b and ribavirin in HIV/hepatitis C virus-co-infected non-responders and relapsers to IFN-based therapy. AIDS. 2004;18(1):75–79. MEDLINE | CrossRef

Poynard et al., 2003a. 25.Poynard T, Marcellin P, Bissery A, Myers RP, Moussalli J, Degos F, et al. Reinforced interferon alpha-2b and ribavirin is more effective than standard combination therapy in the retreatment of chronic hepatitis C previouslynon responsive to interferon: a randomized trial. J Viral Hepat. 2003;10:197–204. MEDLINE | CrossRef

Poynard et al., 2003b. 26.Poynard T, Mathurin P, Cai CL, Guyader D, Poupon R, Tainturier MH, et al. A comparison of fibrosis progression in chronic liver diseases. J Hepatol. 2003;38:257–265. Abstract | Full Text | Full-Text PDF (244 KB) | CrossRef

Poynard et al., 2002. 27.Poynard T, McHutchison J, Manns M, Trepo C, Lindsay K, Goodman Z, et al. Impact of pegylated interferon alfa-2b and ribavirin on liver fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Gastroenterology. 2002;122:1303–1313. Abstract | Full Text | Full-Text PDF (179 KB) | CrossRef

Roche Laboratories, 2004. 28.Roche Laboratories. NV17318, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, phase IV pilot study evaluating the effect of Pegasys® doses of 180μg or 270μg in combination with Copegus® doses of 1200mg or 1600mg on viral kinetics, virological response, pharmacokinetics, and safety in interferon-naïve patients with chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 virus infection of high viral titer and body weight greater than 85kg, 2004.

Rockstroh et al., 2002. 29.Rockstroh JK, Mudar M, Lichterfeld M, Nischalke HD, Klausen G, Golz J, et al. Pilot study of interferon alpha high-dose induction therapy in combination with ribavirin for chronic hepatitis C in HIV-co-infected patients. AIDS. 2002;16:2082–2085.

Sanchez-Tapias et al., 2004. 30.Sanchez-Tapias J, Diago M, Escartin P, Enriquez J, Moreno R, Romero-Gomez M, et al. Longer treatment duration with peginterferon alfa-2a (40kDa) (Pegasys®) and ribavirin (Copegus®) in naïve patients with chronic hepatitis C and detectable HCV RNA by week 4 of therapy: final results of the randomized, multicenter Teravic-4 study. In: Proceedings of the 55th Annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. 2004;.

Sherman et al., 1993. 31.Sherman KE, O’Brien J, Gutierrez AG, Harrison S, Urdea M, Neuwald P, et al. Quantitative evaluation of hepatitis C virus RNA in patients with concurrent human immunodeficiency virus infections. J Clin Microbiol. 1993;31:2679–2682. MEDLINE

Sherman et al., 2002. 32.Sherman KE, Rouster SD, Chung RT, Rajicic N. Hepatitis C virus prevalence among patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus: a cross-sectional analysis of the US adult AIDS Clinical Trials Group. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;34:831–837. CrossRef

Soriano, 2006. 33.Soriano V. Optiming response rates to Peg/RBV in coinfected patients: increased Ribavirin dosing; extending therapy duration. Highlights of the 2nd International Workshop on HIV and Hepatitis Coinfection, 2006.

Soriano et al., 2004. 34.Soriano V, Perez-Olmeda M, Rios P, Nunez M, Garcia-Samaniego J, Gonzalez-Lahoz J. Hepatitis C virus (HCV) relapses after anti-HCV therapy are more frequent in HIV-infected patients. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2004;20(4):351–353. MEDLINE

Teuber et al., 2003. 35.Teuber G, Pascu M, Berg T, Lafrenz M, Pausch J, Kullmann F, et al. Randomized, controlled trial with IFN-alpha combined with ribavirin with and without amantadine sulphate in non-responders with chronic hepatitis C. J Hepatol. 2003;39(4):606–613. Abstract | Full Text | Full-Text PDF (152 KB) | CrossRef

Thuluvath et al., 2003. 36.Thuluvath PJ, Pande H, Maygers J. Combination therapy with interferon-alpha(2b), ribavirin, and amantadine in chronic hepatitis C non-responders to interferon and ribavirin. Dig Dis Sci. 2003;48:594–597. MEDLINE | CrossRef

Tien, 2005. 37.Tien PC. Management and treatment of hepatitis C virus infection in HIV-infected adults: recommendations from the veterans affairs hepatitis C resource center program and national hepatitis C program office. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100(10):2338–2354. MEDLINE | CrossRef

Torriani et al., 2004. 38.Torriani FJ, et al. Peginterferon alfa-2a plus ribavirin for chronic hepatitis C virus infection in HIV-infected patients. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(5):438–450. CrossRef

WHO, 1998. 39.World Health Organization. Hepatitis: 170 million infected worldwide and still no vaccine. WHO Press Release. No. 36. May 1, 1998.

Zein, 2003. 40.Zein NN. The epidemiology and natural history of hepatitis C virus infection. Cleve Clin J Med. 2003;70(Suppl. 4):S2–S6. CrossRef

a Fundación de Investigación de Diego, San Juan, Puerto Rico

b Department of Biochemistry, School of Medicine, University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico

c Ponce School of Medicine, Ponce, Puerto Rico

d University Pathologists, San Juan, Puerto Rico

Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author at: Fundación de Investigación de Diego, Ave. De Diego 359 Suite 302, Santurce 00909, Puerto Rico. Tel.: +787 722 1248; fax: +787 721 6098.

PII: S1386-6532(06)00345-3

doi:10.1016/j.jcv.2006.09.009


View previous. 7 of 18 View next.