Differences in viral kinetics between genotypes 1 and 3 of hepatitis C virus and between cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients during antiviral therapy

AIM: To evaluate the impact of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection with genotype 1 or 3 and the presence or absence of liver cirrhosis (LC) in the early viral kinetics response to treatment. METHODS: Naive patients (n = 46) treated with interferon-α (IFN-α) and ribavirin and followed up with frequent early HCV-RNA determinations were analysed. Patients were infected with genotype 1 (n = 28, 7 with LC) or 3 (n = 18, 5 with LC). RESULTS: The fi rst phase decline was larger in geno- type 3 patients than in genotype 1 patients (1.72 vs 0.95 log IU/mL, P < 0.001). The second phase slope decline was also larger in genotype 3 patients than in genotype 1 patients (0.87 vs 0.15 log/wk, P < 0.001). Differences were found in both cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients. Genotype 1 cirrhotic patients had a slower 2nd phase slope than non-cirrhotic patients (0.06 vs 0.18 log/wk, P < 0.02). None of genotype 1 cirrhotic patients had a 1st phase decline larger than 1 log (non-cirrhotic patients: 55%, P < 0.02). A similar trend toward a slower 2nd phase slope was observed in genotype 3 cirrhotic pa- tients but the 1st phase slope decline was not different. Sustained viral response was higher in genotype 3 pa- tients than in genotype 1 patients (72% vs 14%, P < 0.001) and in genotype 1 non-cirrhotic patients than in genotype 1 cirrhotic patients (19% vs 0%). A secondphase decline slower than 0.3 log/wk was predictive of non-response in all groups. CONCLUSION: Genotype 3 has faster early viral decline than genotype 1. Cirrhosis correlates with a slower 2nd phase decline and possibly with a lower 1st phase slope decline in genotype 1 patients.

Prognostic factors for progression of liver structural lesions in chronic hepatitis C patients

AIM: To evaluate the epidemiological, clinical, laboratory and histological variables capable of predicting the progression of hepatic structural disturbances in chronic hepatitis C patients during the time interval between two liver biopsies. METHODS: Clinical charts of 112 chronic hepatitis C patients were retrospectively analyzed, whereas liver biopsies were revised. Immunohistochemical detection of interferon receptor was based on the Envision-Peroxidase System. RESULTS: In the multivariate analysis, the variables in the age at first biopsy, ALT levels, presence of lymphoid aggregates and siderosis were the determinants of the best model for predicting the severity of the disease. The direct progression rate of hepatic structural lesions was significantly higher in untreated patients, intermediate in treated non-responders and lower in treated responders to antiviral therapy (non-treated vs responders, 0.22 ± 0.50 vs -0.15 ± 0.46, P = 0.0053). Immuno-expression of interferon receptor is not a relevant factor. CONCLUSION: The best predictors of the progression of fibrosis are age at the first liver biopsy, extent of ALT elevation, inflammation at liver histology and hepatic siderosis. Antiviral treatment is effective in preventing the progression of liver structural lesions in chronic hepatitis C patients.