Advertisement

Hepatology International

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 103–109 | Cite as

APASL clinical practice recommendation: how to treat HCV-infected patients with renal impairment?

  • Tatsuo Kanda
  • George K. K. Lau
  • Lai Wei
  • Mitsuhiko Moriyama
  • Ming-Lung Yu
  • Wang-Long Chuang
  • Alaaeldin Ibrahim
  • Cosmas Rinaldi Adithya Lesmana
  • Jose Sollano
  • Manoj Kumar
  • Ankur Jindal
  • Barjesh Chander Sharma
  • Saeed S. Hamid
  • A. Kadir Dokmeci
  • Mamun-Al-Mahtab
  • Geofferey W. McCaughan
  • Jafri Wasim
  • Darrell H. G. Crawford
  • Jia-Horng Kao
  • Osamu Yokosuka
  • Shiv Kumar Sarin
  • Masao OmataEmail author
Open Access
Guidelines

Abstract

Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is common among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and those on hemodialysis due to nosocomial infections and past blood transfusions. While a majority of HCV-infected patients with end-stage renal disease are asymptomatic, some may ultimately experience decompensated liver diseases and hepatocellular carcinoma. Administration of a combination of elbasvir/grazoprevir for 12 weeks leads to high sustained virologic response (SVR) rates in patients with HCV genotypes (GTs) 1a, 1b or 4 and stage 4 or 5 CKD. Furthermore, a combination of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir for 8–16 weeks also results in high SVR rates in patients with all HCV GTs and stage 4 or 5 CKD. However, these regimens are contraindicated in the presence of advanced decompensated cirrhosis. Although sofosbuvir and/or ribavirin are not generally recommended for HCV-infected patients with severe renal impairment, sofosbuvir-based regimens may be appropriate for those with mild renal impairment. To eliminate HCV worldwide, HCV-infected patients with renal impairment should be treated with interferon-free therapies.

Keywords

HCV Renal impairment DAA SVR Hemodialysis Guideline 

Abbreviations

HCV

Hepatitis C virus

GT

Genotype

HCC

Hepatocellular carcinoma

DAAs

Direct-acting antivirals

SVR

Sustained virological response

CKD

Chronic kidney disease

Introduction

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection causes liver diseases including chronic hepatitis, cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), as well as, extrahepatic manifestations [1, 2, 3]. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is one such extrahepatic manifestation of HCV infection [3]. HCV infection also causes cryoglobulinemia and cryoglobulin deposits on vascular endothelium, triggering vasculitis in organs such as the kidneys [4]. HCV-related nephropathy is a type I membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis, commonly in the context of type II mixed cryoglobulinemia [5].

Patients with end-stage renal diseases are at high risk for HCV infection due to the need of repeated blood transfusions for anemia (prior to the availability of blood product screening for HCV infection) [6] and hemodialysis (up to ~ 91%) [7, 8, 9]. Chronic HCV infection also seems to be associated with a higher prevalence of CKD and shorter renal survival, compared with controls [10]. Interferon-based treatments have been associated with severe adverse events for HCV-infected patients with CKD [2].

After the approval of direct-acting antiviral (DAA), treatment initiation in HCV-infected patients with CKD seemed to be less likely in HCV genotype (GT) 2 or 3 and those with diabetes, cardiovascular disease, alcohol abuse or dependence or cirrhosis at baseline [11]. Because HCV NS5B inhibitor sofosbuvir, which also is effective for HCV GT 2 or 3, has not been recommended for patients with severe renal impairment, and HCV-infected patients with more advanced CKD and other complications are less likely to receive treatment for HCV.

Strategies are needed to improve the treatment for HCV-infected patients with renal impairment. In the present article, we discuss recent strategies with interferon-free treatments, which could result in higher sustained virologic response (SVR) rates, for HCV-infected patients with CKD.

Treatment for patients with HCV-related liver diseases, CKD stage 5 with/without hemodialysis and having renal transplant prospect

In general, treatment in setting of kidney transplantation, timing of HCV treatment may be before kidney transplant and if therapy needed after kidney transplantation, careful attention should be paid to drug interactions with immunosuppressive agents. Treatment options for hepatitis C in presence of CKD also depend upon the possibility of renal transplant in near future as well as the severity of underlying liver disease. In patients with compensated HCV-related liver disease, CKD stage 5 with/without hemodialysis and having renal transplant prospect, it is advisable to initiate antiviral therapy post renal transplantation.

CKD patients with HCV-related advanced cirrhosis [patients with clinical decompensation and/or hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) > 10 mmHg] require combined liver–kidney transplantation, which is often not feasible, especially in living donor-related liver transplant (LRLT) settings and considering no other options, these patients should be treated with sofosbuvir-based regimens under close monitoring. This regimen may not be optimal for severe CKD which the guideline does not refute but it may be also too late for the underlying liver disease. Thus, this approach may be reserved for situations where also LRLT is not an option. However, when LRLT is an option such patients may be rescued by LRLT and post-transplant could have their advanced CKD managed by hemodialysis while receiving DAA treatment for non-cirrhotic post-transplant chronic hepatitis C. Although the previous study [12] has demonstrated that DAA treatment is safe and effective at post-kidney transplantation, it may be better for kidney transplantation candidates with HCV-related decompensated cirrhosis and CKD stage 4 or 5 to be treated with sofosbuvir-based regimens under close monitoring before transplantation. Because the patient receives a new kidney, any harm of a sofosbuvir based regimen on kidney function may be less important for kidney transplantation candidate. This approach may be an option in kidney transplantation candidates but not in liver transplantation candidates. Further study will be needed (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1

APASL recommendation for the treatment regimens of patients with HCV and severe impaired renal function. a For glecaprevir/pibrentasvir and/or elbasvir/grazoprevir-affordable/available countries. b For glecaprevir/pibrentasvir and/or elbasvir/grazoprevir-unaffordable/unavailable countries. Although several studies demonstrated that high SVR rate by asunaprevir and daclatasvir in patients with HCV genotype 1b (GT1b) with resistance-associated substitution (RAS) and renal impairment, this combination should be avoided in patients with HCV GT1b with RAS

Real-life data from the ongoing HCV-TARGET study have also demonstrated the efficacy of DAA therapy in patients with kidney transplant and in those with dual liver–kidney transplant. Various regimens were used, including sofosbuvir/ledipasvir with or without ribavirin (85%); sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir with or without ribavirin (9%); and ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir plus dasabuvir with or without ribavirin (6%). The SVR12 rate was 94.6% in those with kidney transplant and 90.9% in dual liver–kidney transplant recipients [13].

Classification of chronic kidney disease (CKD)

The definition of CKD includes all cases with markers of kidney damage [albuminuria (albumin creatine ratio > 3 mg/mmol), hematuria (of presumed or confirmed renal origin), electrolyte abnormalities due to tubular disorders, renal histological abnormalities, structural abnormalities detected by imaging or a history of kidney transplantation] or those with an eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 on at least 2 occasions 90 days apart with or without markers of kidney damage [14]. In general, some patients who have undergone a kidney transplant or have CKD treated with immunosuppressive therapy and/or have anemia, are not always amenable to treatment with some direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for HCV which is excreted through kidney [2, 15] (Table 1). It may be more appropriate to avoid the use of sofosbuvir or ribavirin in patients with GFR < 30 ml/min/1.73 m2 or patients with a GFR < 50 ml/min/1.73 m2, respectively. Thus, careful attention should be paid to the selection of DAAs for HCV-infected patients with renal impairment. We describe two regimens that are relatively safe and recommended for patients with CKD stages 4 and 5.
Table 1

Selection of DAA regimens based on renal function

DAAs

Target of DAAs

Metabolism

NS3/4A

NS5A

NS5B

Hepatic metabolism/metabolites

Renal excretion

Telaprevir

Yes

Yes

Boceprevir

Yes

Yes

Simeprevir

Yes

Yes

Grazoprevir

Yes

Yes

Asunaprevir

Yes

Yes

Paritaprevir

Yes

Yes

Glecaprevir

Yes

Yes

Voxilaprevir

Yes

Yes

Daclatasvir

Yes

Yes

Ledipasvir

Yes

Yes

Ombitasvir

Yes

Yes

Elbasvir

Yes

Yes

Pibrentasvir

Yes

Yes

Velpatasvir

Yes

Yes

Sofosbuvira

Yes

Yes

Beclabuvir

Yes

Yes

Ribavirinb

Yes

DAAs, direct-acting antiviral agents

aBetter to use in patients with eGFR ≥ 30 ml/min/1.73 m2

bBetter to use in patients with eGFR ≥ 50 ml/min/1.73 m2 and hemoglobin ≥ 12 g/dl

Selection of DAAs in HCV-infected patients with severe renal impairment

Treatment with a 12-week combination of grazoprevir/elbasvir for patients with HCV GT1a, GT1b or GT4

The C-SURFFER study included a total of 224 HCV GT1 and stages 4 and 5 CKD patients: 111 and 113 patients who belong to immediate treatment and deferred treatment groups with HCV NS3/4A protease inhibitor grazoprevir (100 mg daily)/HCV NS5A inhibitor elbasvir (50 mg daily) for 12 weeks, respectively [16]. Of these patients, 179 (76%) were hemodialysis-dependent, 122 (52%) were infected with HCV GT1a, 189 (80%) were HCV treatment-naïve, 14 (6%) had cirrhosis, and 108 (46%) were African American. SVR rates in the immediate treatment and deferred treatment groups with grazoprevir/elbasvir were 99% (115/116) and 98% (97/99), respectively [16]. Thus, grazoprevir/elbasvir could lead to higher SVR rates in patients with HCV GT1 and stages 4 and 5 CKD [16, 17]. In the C-SURFFER study [16], the most common adverse events were headache, nausea and fatigue. Cardiac serious events (one cardiac arrest, one cardiomyopathy and three myocardial infarction) were reported in five cases [16]. Other serious adverse events reported in more than one patient were: hypotension, pneumonia, upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage, and aortic aneurysm [16].

Asselah et al. [18] demonstrated that, among HCV GT4-infected patients treated with 12 or 16 weeks of grazoprevir/elbasvir with or without ribavirin, the SVR12 rates in treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced (previously failed pegylated interferon-based treatment) were 96% (107/111) and 89% (39/44), respectively. Although HCV NS5A resistance-associated substitutions (RASs) emerged at virologic failure, baseline HCV NS5A RASs did not impact the SVR 12 rates in the 12 weeks arm of grazoprevir/elbasvir [18].

In patients with HCV GT1a, 1b or 4 and stage 4 or 5 CKD, the use of elbasvir and grazoprevir without ribavirin are recommended by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) [19].

Treatment with a pangenotypic combination of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir for 8–16 weeks

Gane et al. [20] reported that the HCV NS3/4A protease inhibitor glecaprevir combined with the HCV NS5A inhibitor pibrentasvir could result in 98% (102/104) SVR rates in patients with HCV and severe renal impairment [CKD stage 4, 13% (14 patients); CKD stage 5, 87% (90 patients); and/or hemodialysis, 82% (85 patients)]. Their study included a total of 104 patients [male, 76% (79 patients); mean age, 57 years; and mean eGFR in patients not undergoing hemodialysis, 20.6 ml/min/1.73 m2]. The numbers of HCV GT1a, GT1b, GT1 other subgenotypes, GT2, GT3, GT4, GT5 and GT6 were 23, 29, 2, 17, 11, 20, 1 and 1, respectively. The number of treatment-naïve and cirrhotic patients were 58% (60 patients) and 19% (20 patients), respectively. Common adverse events were pruritus (20%), fatigue (14%) and nausea (12%) [20]. Serious adverse events were observed in 24% (25/104). One patient with hemodialysis and hypertension had a cerebral hemorrhage at 2 weeks post-end of treatments (EOT). One patient discontinued treatment at 2 weeks because of non-serious adverse events of diarrhea. Three additional patients discontinued treatments: one at week 8 due to pruritus; one at week 10 due to pulmonary edema, hypertensive cardiomyopathy and congestive heart failure; and one at week 12 due to a hypertensive crisis [20].

The combination of glecaprevir (300 mg daily)/pibrentasvir (120 mg daily) was shown to lead to high SVR rates in Japanese HCV GT1 or GT2-infected patients with severe renal impairment (eGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73 m2) [21].

The use of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir without ribavirin is also recommended by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) for the treatment of patients with HCV GT1, GT2, GT3, GT4, GT5, or GT6 and severe renal impairment [19].

Treatment with a 24-week combination of asunaprevir/daclatasvir without ribavirin for HCV GT1b patients

The combination of HCV NS3/4A protease inhibitor asunaprevir (200 mg daily) and HCV NS5A inhibitor daclatasvir (60 mg daily) for 24 weeks resulted in 100% (16/16) and 100% (8/8) SVR rates in stages 3b, 4 and 5 CKD and HCV GT1b-patients, respectively [22]. This treatment combination also reportedly led to 96% (20/21) and 100% (28/28) SVR rates [23, 24]. Thus, a 24-week combination of asunaprevir/daclatasvir without ribavirin may be a treatment option for patients with HCV GT1b and severe renal impairment [25], although this regimen requires measurement of HCV GTs and HCV NS5A RASs before treatment [26].

Selection of DAAs in HCV-infected patients with mild renal impairment

Sofosbuvir-based regimens in patients with HCV and renal impairment

Sofosbuvir and/or ribavirin are excreted through the kidney, therefore, in general, it may be more appropriate to avoid the use of sofosbuvir or ribavirin in patients with CKD stage 3a, 3b, 4 or 5. However, it has been reported that HCV NS5B inhibitor sofosbuvir-based regimens have been used for HCV-infected patients with severe renal impairment (Table 2) [27, 28, 29]. Patients with CKD stages 3b/4/5 (eGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73 m2) or on hemodialysis seemed to tolerate sofosbuvir-based regimens well. Although sofosbuvir-based regimens could lead to higher SVR rates, sofosbuvir is converted into inactive metabolites and safe and effective doses of sofosbuvir in patients with an eGFR < 30 ml/min have not been established [19]. Taneja et al. [27] reported that low-dose sofosbuvir and full-dose HCV NS5A inhibitor daclatasvir are safe and effective in treating patients with HCV and CKD stages 3b/4/5. Japanese study [30] demonstrated that SVR rates were 97.0, 97.1 and 94.7% and incidence rates of adverse events were 0, 0.5 and 3.0% in sofosbuvir/ledipasvir-treated HCV GT1b-patients with CKD stages 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Although the half-daily dose of sofosbuvir and daclatasvir could also lead to 90.2% SVR rates in 41 patients with HCV GTs 1 and 3 patients and none had a relapse, 2 patients discontinued, and 3 patients died during treatment [31]. Sofosbuvir should be used with caution in patients with severe renal impairment (eGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73 m2) without other treatment options, as the pharmacokinetics and safety of sofosbuvir derived metabolites under these circumstances are still being ascertained [32]. In general, sofosbuvir (400 mg daily) may be recommended for patients with CKD stages 1/2/3 (recommendation B-2 [15]). Generic sofosbuvir and branded sofosbuvir play a role in the elimination of HCV worldwide [28].
Table 2

Sofosbuvir-based regimens in patients with HCV and renal impairment

Ref.

GTs

No. of patients

CKD

Treatment-naïve/cirrhosis

Regimens

SVR12

Taneja et al. [27]

GT1, 42 (65%); GT2, 1 (1%); GT3, 22 (34%)

65

eGFR < 30; HD, 54 (83%)

55 (85%)/21 (32%)

12- or 24-week of 200 mg SOF/60 mg DCV

100% (65/65)

Kumar et al. [28]

GT1a, 17; GT1b, 1; GT3a, 7; GT3b, 1

26

CKD stage 4,5 or HD (eGFR < 30)

19 (73%)/22 (85%)

24-Week of generic SOF/RBV

100% (26/26)

Kumar et al. [28]

GT1a, 22; GT1b, 4

26

CKD stage 4,5 or HD (eGFR < 30)

23 (89%)/20 (77%)

12-Week of generic SOF/LDV

100% (26/26)

Kumar et al. [28]

GT3a, 17; GT3b, 2

19

CKD stage 4,5 or HD (eGFR < 30)

16 (84%)/12 (63%)

12-Week of generic SOF/DCV

100% (19/19)

Sho et al. [29]

GT2

40

CKD stage 3a/3b

29 (73%)/NA

12-Week of SOF/RBV

90% (36/40)

Ref. reference, GTs genotypes, No number, CKD chronic kidney disease, HD hemodialysis, eGFR estimated glomerular filtration rate, SVR12 sustained virological response at 12 weeks, SOF sofosbuvir, DCV daclatasvir, LDV ledipasvir, RBV ribavirin, NA not available

Drug–drug interactions (DDIs) in patients with renal impairment

The rate of DDIs in patients who suffer from CKD is significant [33]. Comorbidity and polypharmacy are common in CKD-patients [34]. Most of DDAs have DDIs with some cardiovascular drugs [35]. Some statins are not recommended for concomitant use with glecaprevir/pibrentasvir treatment [36]. There is a high rate of clinically significant DDIs between DAAs and anti-epileptic medications [37]. During treatment with DAAs, which are even metabolized by the liver, careful management of DDIs should be required in HCV-infected patients with CKD, who are using cardiovascular drugs, statins or anti-epileptic medications. Frequently encountered DDIs in the setting of CKD are shown in Suppl. Table 2.

Conclusion

HCV infection is usually asymptomatic in patients with end-stage renal disease [38]; however, it may lead to decompensated liver diseases and HCC. In some patients with HCV infection and severe renal impairment, treatment with DAAs is discontinued due to renal dysfunction [39]. For patients with CKD stages 4/5, hemodialysis should be prepared if renal function worsens and treatment with a DAA combination is initiated. In some patients undergoing hemodialysis, treatment with a DAA combination may be safer than those with CKD stages 4/5.

Recommendations for the treatment of patients with HCV and severe renal impairment are shown in Tables 3 and 4. A combination of elbasvir/grazoprevir is recommended for patients with HCV GT1a, 1b or 4 and stage 4 or 5 CKD [40]. A combination of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir is recommended for patients with HCV all GTs and stage 4 or 5 CKD (Table 3). Sofosbuvir-based regimens may be suitable for HCV-infected patients with mild renal impairment [28]. It has been reported that a higher frequency of anemia, worsening renal dysfunction and more severe adverse events were observed in patients with low baseline renal function [41]. To eliminate HCV worldwide, HCV-infected patients with renal impairment should be treated with these combination therapies.
Table 3

APASL recommendation for the treatment regimens of patients with HCV and severe impaired renal function

HCV GTs

Regimens

Treatment duration (weeks)

Grading of evidence and recommendations (disease status)

GT1a, GT1b, GT4

Elbasvir (50 mg daily)/grazoprevir (100 mg daily)

12

A-1 (CKD 3b/4/5 or hemodialysis)

All GTs

Glecaprevir (300 mg daily)/pibrentasvir (120 mg daily)

8–16

A-1 (CKD 3b/4/5 or hemodialysis)

GT1b

Daclatasvir (60 mg daily)/asunaprevir (200 mg daily)

24

B-2 (CKD 3b/4/5 or hemodialysis)

All GTs

Sofosbuvir (400 mg daily)/daclatasvir (60 mg daily) under close monitoring

12

B-2 (CKD 3b/4/5 or hemodialysis)

GT1

Sofosbuvir (400 mg daily)/ledipasvir (90 mg daily) under close monitoring

12

B-2 (CKD 3b/4/5 or hemodialysis)

Grading of evidence and recommendations are shown in Suppl. Table 1

GTs genotypes

Table 4

Treatment regimens for patients with hepatitis C virus infection and severe renal impairment: APASL recommendation (this article), compared with those of EASL [32] or AASLD-IDSA [19]

Regimens

APASL

EASL

AASLD-IDSA

Elbasvir/grazoprevir

A-1 [CKD 3b/4/5 or hemodialysis (GT1a, 1b, 4)]

A-1 [CKD 3b/4/5 or hemodialysis (GT1b)]

B-1 [CKD 3b/4/5 or hemodialysis (GT1a, 1b, 4)]

Glecaprevir/pibrentasvir

A-1 [CKD 3b/4/5 or hemodialysis (all GTs)]

A-1 [CKD 3b/4/5 or hemodialysis (all GTs)]

B-1 [CKD 3b/4/5 or hemodialysis (all GTs)]

Daclatasvir/asunaprevir

B-2 [CKD 3b/4/5 or hemodialysis (GT1b)]

No description

No description

Sofosbuvir-based regimens

B-2 [CKD 4/5 or hemodialysis (all GTs)]

B-1 (alternative treatment)

Not recommendation and need close monitoring [41]

Ritonavir-boosted paritaprevir/ombitasvir/dasabuvir

No description

A-1 [CKD 3b/4/5 or hemodialysis (GT1b)]

No description

Grading of evidence and recommendations are shown in Suppl. Table 1

GTs genotypes, CKD chronic kidney disease

Notes

Funding

None.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Dr. Tatsuo Kanda received research grants from Merck Sharp and Dohme (MSD), Chugai Pharm and AbbVie. The founding sponsors played no role in the study design, data collection, analyses, interpretation, writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results. George K. K. Lau, Lai Wei, Mitsuhiko Moriyama, Ming-Lung Yu, Wang-Long Chuang, Alaaeldin Ibrahim, Cosmas Rinaldi Adithya Lesmana, Jose Sollano, Manoj Kumar, Ankur Jindal, Barjesh Chander Sharma, Saeed S. Hamid, A. Kadir Dokmeci, Mamun-Al-Mahtab, Geofferey W. McCaughan, Jafri Wasim, Darrell H. G. Crawford, Jia-Horng Kao, Osamu Yokosuka, Shiv Kumar Sarin, Masao Omata have declared that there are no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of authors.

Informed consent

Not necessary, see above.

Supplementary material

12072_2018_9915_MOESM1_ESM.docx (22 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 22 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Kanda T, Imazeki F, Yokosuka O. New antiviral therapies for chronic hepatitis C. Hepatol Int 2010;4:548–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Omata M, Kanda T, Yu ML, Yokosuka O, Lim SG, Jafri W, et al. APASL consensus statements and management algorithms for hepatitis C virus infection. Hepatol Int 2012;6:409–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mayo MJ. Extrahepatic manifestations of hepatitis C infection. Extrahepatic manifestations of hepatitis C infection. Am J Med Sci 2003;325:135–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Charles ED, Dustin LB. Hepatitis C virus-induced cryoglobulinemia. Kidney Int 2009;76:818–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fabrizi F, Dixit V, Martin P, Messa P. The evidence-based epidemiology of HCV-associated kidney disease. Int J Artif Organs 2012;35:621–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Takano S, Omata M, Ohto M, Satomura Y. Prospective assessment of donor blood screening for antibody to hepatitis C virus and high-titer antibody to HBcAg as a means of preventing posttransfusion hepatitis. Hepatology 1993;18:235–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zeldis JB, Depner TA, Kuramoto IK, Gish RG, Holland PV. The prevalence of hepatitis C virus antibodies among hemodialysis patients. Ann Intern Med 1990;112:958–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Okuda K, Hayashi H, Kobayashi S, Irie Y. Mode of hepatitis C infection not associated with blood transfusion among chronic hemodialysis patients. J Hepatol 1995;23:28–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Okuda K, Yokosuka O. Natural history of chronic hepatitis C in patients on hemodialysis: case control study with 4–23 years of follow-up. World J Gastroenterol 2004;10:2209–2212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Satapathy SK, Lingisetty CS, Williams S. Higher prevalence of chronic kidney disease and shorter renal survival in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection. Hepatol Int 2012;6:369–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Butt AA, Ren Y, Puenpatom A, Arduino JM, Kumar R, Abou-Samra AB. HCV treatment initiation in persons with chronic kidney disease in the directly acting antiviral agents era: results from ERCHIVES. Liver Int 2018;38:1411–1417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sasaki R, Kanda T, Yasui S, Haga Y, Nakamura M, Yamato M, et al. Successful eradication of hepatitis C virus by interferon-free regimens in two patients with advanced liver fibrosis following kidney transplantation. Case Rep Gastroenterol 2016;10:248–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Saxena V, Khungar V, Verna EC, Levitsky J, Brown RS, Hassan MA, et al. Safety and efficacy of current direct-acting antiviral regimens in kidney and liver transplant recipients with hepatitis C: results from the HCV-TARGET study. Hepatology 2017;66:1090–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD Work Group. KDIGO. Clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int Suppl 2012;2013(3):19–62Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Omata M, Kanda T, Wei L, Yu ML, Chuang WL, Ibrahim A, et al. APASL consensus statements and recommendation on treatment of hepatitis C. Hepatol Int 2016;10:702–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roth D, Nelson DR, Bruchfeld A, Liapakis A, Silva M, Monsour H Jr, et al. Grazoprevir plus elbasvir in treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 1 infection and stage 4-5 chronic kidney disease (the C-SURFER study): a combination phase 3 study. Lancet 2015;386:1537–1545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bruchfeld A, Roth D, Martin P, Nelson DR, Pol S, Londoño MC, et al. Elbasvir plus grazoprevir in patients with hepatitis C virus infection and stage 4–5 chronic kidney disease: clinical, virological, and health-related quality-of-life outcomes from a phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;2:585–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Asselah T, Reesink H, Gerstoft J, de Ledinghen V, Pockros PJ, Robertson M, et al. Efficacy of elbasvir and grazoprevir in participants with hepatitis C virus genotype 4 infection: a pooled analysis. Liver Int 2018;38:1583–1591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    AASLD-IDSA HCV guidance: recommendations for testing, managing, and treating hepatitis C. https://www.hcvguidelines.org. Accessed 18 June 2018
  20. 20.
    Gane E, Lawitz E, Pugatch D, Papatheodoridis G, Bräu N, Brown A, et al. Glecaprevir and pibrentasvir in patients with HCV and severe renal impairment. N Engl J Med 2017;377:1448–1455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kumada H, Watanabe T, Suzuki F, Ikeda K, Sato K, Toyoda H, et al. Efficacy and safety of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir in HCV-infected Japanese patients with prior DAA experience, severe renal impairment, or genotype 3 infection. J Gastroenterol 2018;53:566–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Suda G, Nagasaka A, Yamamoto Y, Furuya K, Kumagai K, Kudo M, et al. Safety and efficacy of daclatasvir and asunaprevir in hepatitis C virus-infected patients with renal impairment. Hepatol Res 2017;47:1127–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Suda G, Kudo M, Nagasaka A, Furuya K, Yamamoto Y, Kobayashi T, et al. Efficacy and safety of daclatasvir and asunaprevir combination therapy in chronic hemodialysis patients with chronic hepatitis C. J Gastroenterol 2016;51:733–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Toyoda H, Kumada T, Tada T, Takaguchi K, Ishikawa T, Tsuji K, et al. Safety and efficacy of dual direct-acting antiviral therapy (daclatasvir and asunaprevir) for chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1 infection in patients on hemodialysis. J Gastroenterol 2016;51:741–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Suda G, Furusyo N, Toyoda H, Kawakami Y, Ikeda H, Suzuki M, et al. Daclatasvir and asunaprevir in hemodialysis patients with hepatitis C virus infection: a nationwide retrospective study in Japan. J Gastroenterol 2018;53:119–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kanda T, Yasui S, Nakamura M, Suzuki E, Arai M, Haga Y, et al. Daclatasvir plus asunaprevir treatment for real-world HCV genotype 1-infected patients in Japan. Int J Med Sci 2016;13:418–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Taneja S, Duseja A, De A, Mehta M, Ramachandran R, Kumar V, et al. Low-dose sofosbuvir is safe and effective in treating chronic hepatitis C in patients with severe renal impairment or end-stage renal disease. Dig Dis Sci 2018;63:1334–1340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kumar M, Nayak SL, Gupta E, Kataria A, Sarin SK. Generic sofosbuvir-based direct-acting antivirals in hepatitis C virus-infected patients with chronic kidney disease. Liver Int 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1111/liv.13863 (Epub ahead of print) Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sho T, Suda G, Nagasaka A, Yamamoto Y, Furuya K, Kumagai K, et al. Safety and efficacy of sofosbuvir and ribavirin for genotype 2 hepatitis C Japanese patients with renal dysfunction. Hepatol Res 2018;48:529–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Okubo T, Atsukawa M, Tsubota A, Toyoda H, Shimada N, Abe H, et al. Efficacy and safety of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir for genotype 1b chronic hepatitis C patients with moderate renal impairment. Hepatol Int 2018;12:133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Goel A, Bhadauria DS, Kaul A, Verma P, Mehrotra M, Gupta A, et al. Daclatasvir and reduced-dose sofosbuvir: an effective and pangenotypic treatment for hepatitis C in patients with eGFR < 30 ml/min. Nephrology (Carlton). 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nep.13222 (Epub ahead of print) Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL recommendations on treatment of hepatitis C 2018. J Hepatol 2018;69:461–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sharifi H, Hasanloei MA, Mahmoudi J. Polypharmacy-induced drug–drug interactions; threats to patient safety. Drug Res (Stuttg) 2014;64:633–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fraser SD, Taal MW. Multimorbidity in people with chronic kidney disease: implications for outcomes and treatment. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 2016;25:465–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    University of Liverpool. HEP drug interactions. http://www.hep-druginteractions.org. Accessed 7 Aug 2018
  36. 36.
    Kwo P, Jones P, Barcomb L, Gathe J Jr, Yu Y, Dylla D, et al. Safety and efficacy of statin management during glecaprevir/pibrentasvir treatment for chronic hepatitis C. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018;71(suppl):A1763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Coghlan M. Hepatitis C direct-acting anti-viral treatment options in patients with epilepsy. A drug–drug interaction dilemma in hepatitis C infection. In: AASLD liver meeting 2017: abstract final ID: 1583Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Arora A, Bansal N, Sharma P, Singla V, Gupta V, Tyagi P, et al. Hepatitis C virus infection in patients with end-stage renal disease: a study from a tertiary care centre in India. J Clin Exp Hepatol 2016;6:21–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kanda T, Yasui S, Nakamura M, Nakamoto S, Takahashi K, Wu S, et al. Successful retreatment with grazoprevir and elbasvir for patients infected with hepatitis C virus genotype 1b, who discontinued prior treatment with NS5A inhibitor-including regimens due to adverse events. Oncotarget 2018;9:16263–16270Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kramer JR, Puenpatom A, Erickson K, Cao Y, Smith D, El-Serag H, et al. Real-world effectiveness of elbasvir/grazoprevir in HCV-infected patients in the US veterans affairs healthcare system. J Viral Hepat 2018;25:1270–1279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Saxena V, Koraishy FM, Sise ME, Lim JK, Schmidt M, Chung RT, et al. Safety and efficacy of sofosbuvir-containing regimens in hepatitis C-infected patients with impaired renal function. Liver Int 2016;36:807–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tatsuo Kanda
    • 1
  • George K. K. Lau
    • 2
  • Lai Wei
    • 3
  • Mitsuhiko Moriyama
    • 1
  • Ming-Lung Yu
    • 4
    • 5
  • Wang-Long Chuang
    • 5
  • Alaaeldin Ibrahim
    • 6
  • Cosmas Rinaldi Adithya Lesmana
    • 7
    • 8
  • Jose Sollano
    • 9
  • Manoj Kumar
    • 10
  • Ankur Jindal
    • 10
  • Barjesh Chander Sharma
    • 11
  • Saeed S. Hamid
    • 12
  • A. Kadir Dokmeci
    • 13
  • Mamun-Al-Mahtab
    • 14
  • Geofferey W. McCaughan
    • 15
  • Jafri Wasim
    • 12
  • Darrell H. G. Crawford
    • 16
  • Jia-Horng Kao
    • 17
  • Osamu Yokosuka
    • 18
  • Shiv Kumar Sarin
    • 10
  • Masao Omata
    • 19
    • 20
    Email author
  1. 1.Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of MedicineNihon University School of MedicineTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Humanity and Health Medical CenterHong KongChina
  3. 3.Peking University People’s Hospital, Peking University Hepatology InstituteBeijingChina
  4. 4.Kaohsiung Municipal Ta-Tung HospitalKaohsiungTaiwan
  5. 5.Hepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal MedicineKaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical UniversityKaohsiungTaiwan
  6. 6.GI/Liver Division, Department of Internal MedicineUniversity of BenhaBenhaEgypt
  7. 7.Digestive Disease and GI Oncology CentreMedistra HospitalJakartaIndonesia
  8. 8.Hepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo HospitalUniversitas IndonesiaJakartaIndonesia
  9. 9.University Santo Tomas HospitalManilaPhilippines
  10. 10.Department of HepatologyInstitute of Liver and Biliary SciencesNew DelhiIndia
  11. 11.Department of GastroenterologyG.B. Pant HospitalNew DelhiIndia
  12. 12.Department of MedicineAga Khan University and HospitalKarachiPakistan
  13. 13.Department of GastroenterologyAnkara University School of MedicineAnkaraTurkey
  14. 14.Department of HepatologyBangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical UniversityDhakaBangladesh
  15. 15.Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Centenary InstituteUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia
  16. 16.School of MedicineUniversity of QueenslandWoolloongabbaAustralia
  17. 17.National Taiwan University College of Medicine and National Taiwan University HospitalTaipeiTaiwan
  18. 18.Graduate School of MedicineChiba UniversityChibaJapan
  19. 19.Yamanashi Prefectural Central HospitalKofu-shiJapan
  20. 20.The University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations