Search

Context: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a major public health issue worldwide, including Iran. The new direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs) with high efficacy have changed the landscape of HCV treatment. This guideline provides updated recommendations for clinical management of HCV infection in Iran. Evidence Acquisition: The recommendations of this guideline are based on international and national scientific evidences and consensus-based expert opinion. Scientific evidences were collected through a systematic review of studies that evaluated efficacy and safety of DAA regimens, using PubMed, ScopusandWeb of Science. Expert opinionwasbasedonthe consensus of Iran Hepatitis Scientific Board (IHSB) in the 3rd national consensus on management of Hepatitis C in Iran, held on 22nd of July 2016. Results: Pegylated Interferon alpha (PegIFN), Ribavirin (RBV), Sofosbuvir (SOF), Ledipasvir (LDV) and Daclatasvir (DCV) are currently available in Iran. Pre-treatment assessments include HCV RNA level, HCV genotype and resistance testing, assessment of liver fibrosis, and underlying diseases. InHCVgenotype 1 and 4, DCV/SOF and LDV/SOF are recommended. InHCVgenotype 2, SOF plus RBV and inHCVgenotype 3, DCV/SOF is recommended. Additional care for underlying diseases should be considered. Conclusions: Affordable new HCV treatment regimens are available in Iran, providing an opportunity for HCV elimination. Recommendations provided in this current national guideline can facilitate evidence-based management of HCV infection.

We retrospectively analyzed 42 hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected patients who underwent cadaveric liver transplantation under two strategies of immunosuppression: (1) daily tacrolimus (TAC) throughout and an initial cycle of high-dose prednisone (PRED) with subsequent gradual steroid weaning, or (2) intraoperative antithymocyte globulin (ATG) and daily TAC that was later space weaned. After 36 ± 4 months, patient and graft survival in the first group was 18/19 (94.7%) with no examples of clinically serious HCV recurrence. In the second group, the three-year patient survival was 12/23 (52%), and graft survival was 9/23 (39%); accelerated recurrent hepatitis was the principal cause of the poor results. The data were interpreted in the context of a recently proposed immunologic paradigm that is equally applicable to transplantation and viral immunity. In the framework of this paradigm, the disparate hepatitis outcomes reflected different equilibria reached under the two immunosuppression regimens between the relative kinetics of viral distribution (systemically and in the liver) and the slowly recovering HCV-specific T-cell response. As a corollary, the aims of treatment of the HCV-infected liver recipients should be to predict, monitor, and equilibrate beneficial balances between virus distribution and the absence of an immunopathologic antiviral T-cell response. In this view, favorable equilibria were accomplished in the nonweaned group of patients but not in the weaned group. In conclusion, since the anti-HCV response is unleashed when immunosuppression is weaned, treatment protocols that minimize disease recurrence in HCV-infected allograft recipients must balance the desire to reduce immunosuppression or induce allotolerance with the need to prevent antiviral immunopathology. Copyright © 2005 by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

Rationale and Design: The accuracy of a prospective histopathologic diagnosis of rejection and recurrent hepatitis C (HCV) was determined in 48 HCV RNA-positive liver allograft recipients enrolled in an "immunosuppression minimization protocol" between July 29, 2001 and January 24, 2003. Prospective entry of all pertinent treatment, laboratory, and histopathology results into an electronic data-base enabled a retrospective analysis of the accuracy of histopathologic diagnoses and the pathophysiologic relationship between recurrent HCV and rejection. Results: Time to first onset of acute rejection (AR) (mean, 107 days; median, 83 days; range, 7-329 days) overlapped with the time to first onset of recurrent HCV (mean, 115 days; median, 123 days; range, 22-315 days), making distinction between the two difficult. AR and chronic rejection (CR) with and without co-existent HCV showed overlapping but significantly different liver injury test profiles. One major and two minor errors occurred (positive predictive values for AR = 91%; recurrent HCV = 100%) ; all involved an overdiagnosis of AR in the context of recurrent HCV. Retrospective analysis of the mistakes showed that major errors can be avoided altogether and the impact of unavoidable minor errors can be minimized by strict adherence to specific histopathologic criteria, close clinicopathologic correlation including examination of HCV RNA levels, and a conservative approach to the use of additional immunosuppression. In addition, histopathologic diagnoses of moderate and severe AR and CR were associated with relatively low HCV RNA levels, whereas relatively high HCV RNA levels were associated with a histopathologic diagnosis of hepatitis alone, particularly the cholestatic variant of HCV. Conclusions: Liver allograft biopsy interpretation can rapidly and accurately distinguish between recurrent HCV and AR/CR. In addition, the histopathologic observations suggest that the immune mechanism responsible for HCV clearance

Although the reductionist approach has served science well for 400 years, the accumulation of details can obscure the truth if the original premise is incorrect. One such premise has been that successful organ transplantation and bone marrow engraftment are fundamentally different outcomes involving separate and distinct mechanisms. Some historical clinical observations pointed to a different conclusion almost from the beginning and included clues about how to induce tolerance with the aid of immunosuppression.

We have proposed that the mechanisms of alloengraftment and variable acquired tolerance can be facilitated by minimum posttransplant immunosuppression. It was further suggested that the efficacy of minimalistic treatment could be enhanced by preoperative recipient conditioning with an antilymphoid antibody preparation. A total of 76 adults (38 hepatitis C virus [HCV]-, 38 HCV+ were infused with 30 mg alemtuzumab before primary cadaveric liver transplantation and maintained afterward on daily monotherapy unless breakthrough rejection mandated additional agents. In stable patients, the intervals between tacrolimus doses were lengthened ("spaced weaning") after approximately 4 months. Eighty-four contemporaneous nonlymphoid-depleted liver recipients (58 HCV-, 26 HCV+) were treated with conventional postoperative immunosuppression. The overall incidence of rejection was similar with the two strategies of immunosuppression. With follow-ups of 14 to 22 months, patient and primary graft survival in HCV- cases are 97% and 90%, respectively, with alemtuzumab depletion plus minimal immunosuppression versus 71% and 70%, respectively, under conventional immunosuppression. In HCV+ recipients, current patient and graft survival in the alemtuzumab-pretreated group are 71% and 70% versus 65% and 54%, respectively, under conventional treatment. With both strategies of immunosuppression, the adverse effect of preexisting HCV on survival parameters and graft function already was significant at the 1-year milestone, but its extent was not evident until the second year. With or without HCV, 62% of the 64 surviving lymphoid-depleted patients are on spaced immunosuppression, and four patients receive no immunosuppression. Lymphoid depletion with alemtuzumab and minimalistic maintenance immunosuppression is a practical strategy of liver transplantation in HCV- recipients but not HCV+ recipients.