Skip Navigation LinksHome > July 2012 - Volume 7 - Issue 4 > HIV and viral hepatitis C coinfection in people who inject d...
Current Opinion in HIV & AIDS:
doi: 10.1097/COH.0b013e328354131e
INJECTING DRUG USE AND HIV: Edited by Lisa Maher and Nick Walsh

HIV and viral hepatitis C coinfection in people who inject drugs: implications of new direct acting antivirals for hepatitis C virus treatment

Walsh, Nicka; Maher, Lisab

Free Access
Article Outline
Collapse Box

Author Information

aDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria

bViral Hepatitis Epidemiology and Prevention Program, Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Correspondence to Professor Lisa Maher, Program Head and NHMRC Senior Research Fellow, Viral Hepatitis Epidemiology and Prevention Program, Kirby Institute (formerly the National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research), University of New South Wales, Centre for Immunology, Corner West and Boundary Streets, Darlinghurst, Sydney, NSW 2010, Australia. E-mail:

Collapse Box


Purpose of review: The recent major shift toward oral direct acting hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatments has the potential to revolutionize the global response to HCV. People who inject drugs (PWID) are a large key affected population who stand to benefit from these new medications.

Recent findings: There is a large number of new drug classes and targets with activity against HCV. Although effective for HCV treatment in monoinfection and coinfection with HIV, most direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) remain within the research pipeline, with only two having achieved regulatory approval to date. Clinical trial data are not available regarding HCV treatment for PWID with DAAs. This article reviews clinical data on HCV treatment for a number of promising compounds in HCV monoinfection and coinfection with HIV and discusses the barriers facing PWID in scale-up and roll-out of DAAs in the coming years.

Summary: DAAs have the potential to revolutionize HCV treatment. There will be significant access barriers for people who inject drugs to these new medications.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Injecting drug use is associated with significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Global estimates suggest that between 11 and 21.2 million people inject drugs in at least 148 countries [1]. HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV) coinfection occurs disproportionally among people who inject drugs (PWID) as both infections are readily transmissible by the sharing of injecting equipment. Many PWID are repeatedly exposed to HCV through the sharing of syringes and other injecting equipment and injecting drug use is associated with a high incidence of both primary infection and reinfection with HCV [2–4]. HCV/HIV coinfected PWID face a number of challenges compared with their monoinfected peers. These include a reduced chance of spontaneous clearance of HCV in HIV-infected individuals and accelerated HIV and HCV disease progression [5–12].

Back to Top | Article Outline


In HCV/HIV coinfection, treatment of either disease shows clinical benefit to the other. In addition, effective HIV treatment resulting in viral suppression can also reduce HIV transmission at the population level, although this concept is yet to be tested for HCV [13▪,14]. Effective antiretroviral therapy to suppress HIV viral replication may retard the progression of liver disease in coinfection to that comparable with HCV monoinfection [15], whereas standard of care (SoC) treatment [pegylated interferon (PEGIFN) ribavirin (RBV) combination therapy] compared with no treatment for HCV results in better clinical outcomes for HCV/HIV coinfected individuals even in the presence of cirrhosis [16].

The current SoC in both HCV monoinfection and HCV/HIV coinfection is combination PEGIFN/RBV [17▪,18▪]. Telaprevir (TVR) or boceprevir (BOC) is added to the regimen in genotype 1 monoinfection [19]. Combination PEGIFN/RBV treatment is effective in HCV/HIV coinfection, with 24-week posttreatment sustained virologic response (SVR24) rates of between 27 and 40% overall, and up to 73% in genotype non1 [20,21], although patients with coinfection are less likely to achieve SVR than their HCV monoinfected counterparts [20–23]. PEGIFN is superior to standard interferon for treatment of genotype 1 and 4 HCV in HIV coinfection, although there is little difference for genotype 2/3 [24]. Treatment of acute HCV infection in HCV/HIV coinfection achieves SVRs of over 70% regardless of genotype or duration of therapy [25,26].

Box 1
Box 1
Image Tools

A number of factors currently guides the decision to treat. Genotype 2/3 infection and lower viral load are associated with improved response to SoC therapy, as are younger age, female sex, and the absence of, or minimal, fibrosis [27,28]. HCV treatment is also more effective in patients with adequate immune function [20]. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the interleukin-28B (IL28B) region, involved in the coding for interferon-λ, are associated with both treatment-induced and spontaneous clearance of HCV and explain some of the interracial differences observed in treatment responses as this gene is less common in African-Americans [29–31]. The effect is similar in HCV/HIV coinfection [32].

Back to Top | Article Outline


Despite recent advances, significant barriers to access effective HIV and HCV treatment remain for PWID and the uptake of SoC treatment among PWID remains very low. In addition to poverty, these barriers include discrimination, poor health, and treatment literacy among PWID, relatively few health professionals skilled at providing integrated clinical management for PWID, and limited access to effective substance dependence treatment particularly in low-income and middle-income countries.

Although a number of studies have demonstrated that it is possible to achieve good outcomes in PWID treated for HCV monoinfection [33–35], few studies have examined HCV treatment in HIV coinfected active PWID. Adherence is important for effective HCV and HIV treatment and in limiting resistance and its potential transmission [36,37]. Although there is some evidence that opioid substitution therapy (OST) in opioid-dependent PWID can boost the effectiveness of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) [38], this issue has not been widely studied for hepatitis C therapy, although treatment for HCV may reduce nonadherence to HIV treatment among HIV-infected PWID [39▪]. Directly observed therapy is associated with better HIV treatment outcomes in PWID on OST, although its impact on hepatitis C treatment in PWID is yet to be confirmed [40,41]. Interactions between OST and SoC HCV treatment are not clinically significant [42].

Back to Top | Article Outline


The big news in 2011 was the realistic prospect of IFN-free therapy using direct-acting antivirals (DAAs), new classes of drugs that target specific enzymes of the replicating apparatus of the HCV virus, in much the same way that antiretroviral medications act on the HIV virus. The DAA classes farthest progressed down the clinical trial pipeline are protease inhibitors, NS5A inhibitors, polymerase inhibitors (nucleoside, nucleotide, and nonnucleoside), and host targeting anti-HCV agents such as cyclophilin inhibitors.

HCV protease inhibitors are already available in clinical practice in some countries. This class targets the NS3/4A serine protease that is involved in RNA replication and virion assembly, essential for HCV replication, and may also be involved in attenuating the innate immune response during the early phase of infection [43–45]. Two inhibitors of the NS3/4A serine protease, BOC and TVR, have been shown to markedly improve SVR rates in both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients [46▪,47▪,48]. Monotherapy quickly results in resistance mutations so combination with PEGIFN/RBV is necessary [49,50]. Both TVR and BOC may also have activity in genotype 2 infection, whereas BOC may have activity in genotype 3 HCV [51,52]. Following the approval and commercial release of TVR and BOC in the USA, the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease updated its practice guidelines for the treatment of HCV genotype 1 to include these medications [19]. The European Association for the Study of the Liver clinical practice guidelines are yet to include these new agents [17▪], although TVR and BOC are now approved for use in Europe and Australia.

TMC435 is another protease inhibitor currently in phase III investigation. In a phase IIb study of 462 genotype 1 treatment experienced patients who had not previously achieved SVR, the addition of TMC435 compared with SoC alone increased the SVR from 19 to 51% in previous null responders, 9–75% in previous partial responders, and 37–85% in prior relapsers [53]. Results of a phase IIb trial in 386 genotype 1 treatment-naive patients reported an SVR of 75–86%, significantly higher than SoC at 65% [54]. TMC 435 has the adherence advantage of being a once daily agent.

NS5A is a zinc metalloprotein that regulates viral replication and interacts with cellular pathways linked to interferon resistance [55,56]. A recent phase 2a study of the NS5A inhibitor daclatasvir (formerly BMS 790052) and the NS3 protease inhibitor asunaprevir (BMS-650032) in combination therapy in difficult to treat genotype 1 HCV previous null responders reported a 40% RVR (rapid virologic response), whereas 90% achieved SVR24. Although resistance mutations to both drugs were detected, there was no evidence of viral breakthrough [57]. A similar study of these two drugs, although 24 weeks with two arms, in 21 genotype 1 nonresponders comparing quadruple therapy including PEGIFN and RBV showed an SVR of 36% in the dual DAA arm, but 90% in the daclatasvir/asunaprevir/PEGIFN/RBV arm. Almost all participants carried the IL28B genotypes associated with poor response. Virus breakthrough occurred in six patients in the dual DAA arm but not in the quadruple therapy arm [58].

The hepatitis virus polymerase replicating mechanism is another target for a plethora of new drugs including nucleoside, nucleotide, and nonnucleoside polymerase inhibitors. In a recent trial, 40 patients with genotype 2/3 HCV were treated with PSI7977 (now GS7977), a uridine nucleotide analog HCV polymerase inhibitor and RBV and either 0, 4, 8, or 12 weeks of PEGIFN. All achieved RVR, end of treatment response, and SVR regardless of PEGIFN status. No virus breakthrough was observed. Only 10 patients did not receive PEGIFN and around 40% had IL28B SNP [59▪]. Early evidence from genotype 1 trials suggests that 12 week of G27977/ribavirin is insufficient to prevent relapse, despite early viral suppression and the combination having a high barrier to resistance [60]. Several studies are underway investigating the treatment response of GS7977 in previous nonresponders and those with genotype 1 infection.

Mericitabine (formerly RG7128) is another polymerase inhibitor showing promise. Ninety-one percent of patients with genotype 1/4 in a recent phase II trial achieved SVR when used in combination with 24 weeks of SoC. Mericitibine was well tolerated with no virologic breakthrough and outcomes were independent of IL28B status [61]. All-oral studies of mericitibine are underway.

Cyclophilin inhibitors target cyclophilins, which regulate HCV replication through modulation of the RNA-binding capacity of NS5B (the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase) [62] and other unknown mechanisms. The most promising candidate to date is the cyclosporin A analog alispirivir (formerly DEB025). A phase II study of 288 treatment-naive individuals with genotype 1 infection showed SVR of 76% after 47 weeks of alispirivir/PEGIFN/RBV compared with 55% with SoC (PEGIFN/RBV). Results were independent of IL28B genotype status [63].

Back to Top | Article Outline


Interim data on the efficacy of TVR and BOC for the treatment of HCV/HIV coinfection appear promising, although recommendations for the treatment of HCV in HCV/HIV coinfection – 48 weeks of PEG IFN RBV therapy regardless of genotype [18▪] – remain unchanged.

A recent phase II trial randomized genotype 1 HCV/HIV coinfected patients to TVR or placebo and PEGIFN/RBV for 12 weeks followed by 36 weeks of PEGIFN/RBV. Complete early virologic response (cEVR) was 68% in TVR arm compared with 14% for standard therapy, whereas the RVR was 70% compared with 5%, respectively. However, results varied according to the HIV regimen used, with atazanavir reducing cEVR from 71 [not on antiretroviral therapy (ART)] to 57% [64]. Interim SVR12 results in the TVR or placebo and PEGIFNα2a and RBV arm were 74% compared with 45% in the SoC arm [65▪].

Also in 2011, another phase II trial published interim results in which 100 previously untreated genotype 1 HCV/HIV coinfected patients were randomly assigned to receive BOC and PEG IFNα2b and RBV or SoC for 44 weeks, with a 4-week lead of PEGIFN/RBV. All patients had undetectable (<50 copies/ml) HIV viral loads and the median CD4 T-cell count was 580 cells/μl. Interim SVR12 results in the BOC/PEG IFN/RBV arm were 61% compared with 27% in the SoC arm [66▪].

Unfortunately, there are important interactions with antiretroviral drugs that will affect individuals treated with TVR or BOC. Both TVR and BOC increase tenofovir levels [67,68], whereas efavirenz reduces TVR and BOC [68]. Ritonavir and other protease inhibitors used in HIV treatment reduce TVR levels [67,69▪].

Although we wait with anticipation for the final results of these trials and other oral DAA trials in HCV/HIV coinfection in the general population, regrettably there are no clinical data regarding the efficacy of DAAs in the treatment of coinfection in PWID.

Back to Top | Article Outline


In general, the proportion of people with HIV coinfected with HCV remains around 10%. However, in PWID it is well over 50% and over 90% in a number of countries [70–72]. The advent of HAART in 1996 revolutionized HIV treatment [73]. We are on the cusp of a similar revolution in HCV treatment with the advent of DAAs and other oral therapies.

It remains to be seen whether PWID will benefit from these advances. Issues related to inclusion of PWID in clinical trials and subsequent roll-out of DAAs parallel those observed in HIV more than a decade ago. Initially, limited trials including PWID slowed penetration of HAART to PWID populations. Fifteen years later, access to ART by PWID remains poor, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries. Effective ART in PWID compared with noninjectors also remains suboptimal, even more so than in the pre-HAART era [74,75]. Without a coordinated global effort and designated funding, it is unlikely a similar scenario will be avoided for DAAs and PWID.

Adherence to treatment is a key determinant of outcomes in many diseases, including in HCV infection. New DAAs require high levels of adherence to prevent viral breakthrough. For example, TVR needs to be taken every 8 hr to prevent drug levels dropping to where HCV replication may be only partially inhibited, promoting resistance. Adherence support is a well documented intervention to optimize HIV treatment [76,77], and is cost effective for most interventions [78,79]. At this stage, it appears that adherence support will also be necessary with HCV DAAs. It is likely that interventions for optimizing HIV treatment in PWID, such as OST for opioid dependence, may also increase the effectiveness of HCV treatment with DAAs by enhancing adherence.

It remains to be seen whether scale-up and roll-out of current SoC for HCV can be justified given the costs and difficulties associated with this treatment, or whether we should wait until more effective and better tolerated oral DAA short-course regimens hit the market. Price reduction is a key component for improving access to current SoC for PWID. Over the next 5 years, as current patents of PEGIFN start to expire, it is likely that cheaper generic versions will become more widely available. DAAs will also be expensive, creating a formidable barrier to access especially for PWID. However, these new therapies are likely to be significantly shorter in treatment duration, raising the possibility of capped costs as well as reduced barriers to treatment uptake and increased retention in treatment. The removal of barriers associated with interferon-based treatments such as requirements for cold chain and subcutaneous injections will be another benefit of all-oral regimens.

Despite recent developments, access to HCV/HIV treatment for this population remains a major issue, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries. Current barriers to treatment uptake include stigma and discrimination, institutional and structural constraints, including the criminalization of drug use, limited access to primary healthcare, the absence of effective substance dependence treatment in many parts of the world, poor health and treatment literacy among PWID and, of course, poverty. DAAs have the potential to have a substantial impact on the existing burden of hepatitis C-related disease among PWID. They also raise the prospect of hepatitis C treatment as prevention in this population. However, population-based reduction of HCV through treatment will only become a reality when access barriers are addressed.

Back to Top | Article Outline



Back to Top | Article Outline
Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Papers of particular interest, published within the annual period of review, have been highlighted as:

▪ of special interest

▪▪ of outstanding interest

Additional references related to this topic can also be found in the Current World Literature section in this issue (pp. 379–380).

Back to Top | Article Outline


1. Mathers BM, Degenhardt L, Phillips B, et al. Global epidemiology of injecting drug use and HIV among people who inject drugs: a systematic review. Lancet 2008; 372:1733–1745.

2. Maher L, Jalaludin B, Chant KG, et al. Incidence and risk factors for hepatitis C seroconversion in injecting drug users in Australia. Addiction 2006; 101:1499–1508.

3. Aitken CK, Lewis J, Tracy SL, et al. High incidence of hepatitis C virus reinfection in a cohort of injecting drug users. Hepatology 2008; 48:1746–1752.

4. Grebely J, Pham ST, Matthews GV, et al. Hepatitis C virus reinfection and superinfection among treated and untreated participants with recent infection. Hepatology 2012; 55:1058–1069.

5. Dieterich DT, Robinson PA, Love J, Stern JO. Drug-induced liver injury associated with the use of nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 38 (Suppl 2):S80–S89.

6. Tedaldi EM, Baker RK, Moorman AC, et al. Influence of coinfection with hepatitis C virus on morbidity and mortality due to human immunodeficiency virus infection in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 36:363–367.

7. Greub G, Ledergerber B, Battegay M, et al. Clinical progression, survival, and immune recovery during antiretroviral therapy in patients with HIV-1 and hepatitis C virus coinfection: the Swiss HIV Cohort Study. Lancet 2000; 356:1800–1805.

8. Clausen LN, Weis N, Schonning K, et al. Correlates of spontaneous clearance of hepatitis C virus in a Danish human immunodeficiency virus type 1 cohort. Scand J Infect Dis 2011; 43:798–803.

9. Grebely J, Matthews GV, Petoumenos K, Dore GJ. Spontaneous clearance and the beneficial impact of treatment on clearance during recent hepatitis C virus infection. J Viral Hepat 2010; 17:896.

10. Soriano V, Mocroft A, Rockstroh J, et al. Spontaneous viral clearance, viral load, and genotype distribution of hepatitis C virus (HCV) in HIV-infected patients with anti-HCV antibodies in Europe. J Infect Dis 2008; 198:1337–1344.

11. Thein HH, Yi Q, Dore GJ, Krahn MD. Natural history of hepatitis C virus infection in HIV-infected individuals and the impact of HIV in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy: a meta-analysis. AIDS 2008; 22:1979–1991.

12. Martin-Carbonero L, de Ledinghen V, Moreno A, et al. Liver fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C and persistently normal liver enzymes: influence of HIV infection. J Viral Hepat 2009; 16:790–795.

13▪. Montaner JS, Lima VD, Barrios R, et al. Association of highly active antiretroviral therapy coverage, population viral load, and yearly new HIV diagnoses in British Columbia, Canada: a population-based study. Lancet 2010; 376:532–539.

Evidence that the HIV treatment as prevention concept is effective at a population level.

14. Montaner JS, Wood E, Kerr T, et al. Expanded highly active antiretroviral therapy coverage among HIV-positive drug users to improve individual and public health outcomes. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2010; 55 (Suppl 1):S5–S9.

15. Brau N, Salvatore M, Rios-Bedoya CF, et al. Slower fibrosis progression in HIV/HCV-coinfected patients with successful HIV suppression using antiretroviral therapy. J Hepatol 2006; 44:47–55.

16. Pineda JA, Aguilar-Guisado M, Rivero A, et al. Natural history of compensated hepatitis C virus-related cirrhosis in HIV-infected patients. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 49:1274–1282.

17▪. EASL. European Association for Study of the Liver Clinical Practice Guidelines: management of hepatitis C virus infection. J Hepatol 2011; 55:245–264.

Current guidelines on the management and treatment of hepatitis C (European Association for Study of the Liver).

18▪. Ghany MG, Strader DB, Thomas DL, Seeff LB. Diagnosis, management, and treatment of hepatitis C: an update. Hepatology 2009; 49:1335–1374.

Current guidelines on the management and treatment of hepatitis C for genotype 1 (American Association for the Study of Liver Disease).

19. Ghany MG, Nelson DR, Strader DB, et al. An update on treatment of genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C virus infection: 2011 practice guideline by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology 2011; 54:1433–1444.

20. Torriani FJ, Rodriguez-Torres M, Rockstroh JK, et al. Peginterferon Alfa-2a plus ribavirin for chronic hepatitis C virus infection in HIV-infected patients. N Engl J Med 2004; 351:438–450.

21. Chung RT, Andersen J, Volberding P, et al. Peginterferon Alfa-2a plus ribavirin versus interferon alfa-2a plus ribavirin for chronic hepatitis C in HIV-coinfected persons. N Engl J Med 2004; 351:451–459.

22. Carrat F, Bani-Sadr F, Pol S, et al. Pegylated interferon alfa-2b vs standard interferon alfa-2b, plus ribavirin, for chronic hepatitis C in HIV-infected patients: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2004; 292:2839–2848.

23. Laguno M, Murillas J, Blanco JL, 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:F27–36.

24. Laguno M, Cifuentes C, Murillas J, et al. Randomized trial comparing pegylated interferon alpha-2b versus pegylated interferon alpha-2a, both plus ribavirin, to treat chronic hepatitis C in human immunodeficiency virus patients. Hepatology 2009; 49:22–31.

25. Dominguez S, Ghosn J, Valantin MA, et al. Efficacy of early treatment of acute hepatitis C infection with pegylated interferon and ribavirin in HIV-infected patients. AIDS 2006; 20:1157–1161.

26. Lambers FA, Brinkman K, Schinkel J, et al. Treatment of acute hepatitis C virus infection in HIV-infected MSM: the effect of treatment duration. AIDS 2011; 25:1333–1336.

27. Heathcote EJ, Shiffman ML, Cooksley WG, et al. Peginterferon alfa-2a in patients with chronic hepatitis C and cirrhosis. N Engl J Med 2000; 343:1673–1680.

28. Zeuzem S, Feinman SV, Rasenack J, et al. Peginterferon alfa-2a in patients with chronic hepatitis C. N Engl J Med 2000; 343:1666–1672.

29. Ge D, Fellay J, Thompson AJ, et al. Genetic variation in IL28B predicts hepatitis C treatment-induced viral clearance. Nature 2009; 461:399–401.

30. Tanaka Y, Nishida N, Sugiyama M, et al. Genome-wide association of IL28B with response to pegylated interferon-alpha and ribavirin therapy for chronic hepatitis C. Nat Genet 2009; 41:1105–1109.

31. Suppiah V, Moldovan M, Ahlenstiel G, et al. IL28B is associated with response to chronic hepatitis C interferon-alpha and ribavirin therapy. Nat Genet 2009; 41:1100–1104.

32. Rallon NI, Soriano V, Naggie S, et al. IL28B gene polymorphisms and viral kinetics in HIV/hepatitis C virus-coinfected patients treated with pegylated interferon and ribavirin. AIDS 2011; 25:1025–1033.

33. Wong J, Sylvestre D, Siebert U. Cost-effectiveness of treatment of HCV in injecting drug users. In: Jager J, Limburg W, Kretzschmar M, Postma M, Wiessing L, editors. Hepatitis C and injecting drug use: impact, costs and policy options. Lisbon: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction; 2004. pp. 219–244.

34. Sylvestre D. Treating hepatitis C virus infection in active substance users. Clin Infect Dis 2005; 40 (Supplement 5):S321–S324.

35. Bruggmann P, Falcato L, Dober S, et al. Active intravenous drug use during chronic hepatitis C therapy does not reduce sustained virological response rates in adherent patients. J Viral Hepat 2008; 15:747–752.

36. Blower SM, Aschenbach AN, Gershengorn HB, Kahn JO. Predicting the unpredictable: transmission of drug-resistant HIV. Nat Med 2001; 7:1016–1020.

37. Wensing AM, van de Vijver DA, Angarano G, et al. Prevalence of drug-resistant HIV-1 variants in untreated individuals in Europe: implications for clinical management. J Infect Dis 2005; 192:958–966.

38. Roux P, Carrieri MP, Villes V, et al. The impact of methadone or buprenorphine treatment and ongoing injection on highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) adherence: evidence from the MANIF2000 cohort study. Addiction 2008; 103:1828–1836.

39▪. Roux P, Fugon L, Winnock M, et al. Positive impact of hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment on antiretroviral treatment adherence in human immunodeficiency virus-HCV coinfected patients: one more argument for expanded access to HCV treatment for injecting drug users. Addiction 2012; 107:152–159.

First demonstration that treatment of HCV in PWID improves adherence to HIV treatment.

40. Berg KM, Litwin A, Li X, et al. Directly observed antiretroviral therapy improves adherence and viral load in drug users attending methadone maintenance clinics: a randomized controlled trial. Drug Alcohol Depend 2011; 113:192–199.

41. Grebely J, Raffa JD, Meagher C, et al. Directly observed therapy for the treatment of hepatitis C virus infection in current and former injection drug users. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007; 22:1519–1525.

42. Mocroft A, Rockstroh J, Soriano V, et al. Are specific antiretrovirals associated with an increased risk of discontinuation due to toxicities or patient/physician choice in patients with hepatitis C virus coinfection? Antivir Ther 2005; 10:779–790.

43. Foy E, Li K, Wang C, et al. Regulation of interferon regulatory factor-3 by the hepatitis C virus serine protease. Science 2003; 300:1145–1148.

44. Li K, Foy E, Ferreon JC, et al. Immune evasion by hepatitis C virus NS3/4A protease-mediated cleavage of the Toll-like receptor 3 adaptor protein TRIF. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005; 102:2992–2997.

45. Sumpter R Jr, Loo YM, Foy E, et al. Regulating intracellular antiviral defense and permissiveness to hepatitis C virus RNA replication through a cellular RNA helicase, RIG-I. J Virol 2005; 79:2689–2699.

46▪. Poordad F, McCone J Jr, Bacon BR, et al. Boceprevir for untreated chronic HCV genotype 1 infection. N Engl J Med 2011; 364:1195–1206.

Definitive article on the clinical effectiveness of boceprevir in HCV treatment-naive patients.

47▪. Jacobson IM, McHutchison JG, Dusheiko G, et al. Telaprevir for previously untreated chronic hepatitis C virus infection. N Engl J Med 2011; 364:2405–2416.

Definitive paper on the clinical effectiveness of telaprevir in HCV treatment naïve subjects.

48. Zeuzem S, Andreone P, Pol S, et al. Telaprevir for retreatment of HCV infection. N Engl J Med 2011; 364:2417–2428.

49. Reesink HW, Zeuzem S, Weegink CJ, et al. Rapid decline of viral RNA in hepatitis C patients treated with VX-950: a phase Ib, placebo-controlled, randomized study. Gastroenterology 2006; 131:997–1002.

50. Lin K, Perni RB, Kwong AD, Lin C. VX-950, a novel hepatitis C virus (HCV) NS3-4A protease inhibitor, exhibits potent antiviral activities in HCV replicon cells. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006; 50:1813–1822.

51. Foster GR, Hezode C, Bronowicki JP, et al. Telaprevir alone or with peginterferon and ribavirin reduces HCV RNA in patients with chronic genotype 2 but not genotype 3 infections. Gastroenterology 2011; 141:881–889 e1.

52. Silva M, Kasserra C, Gupta S, et al. Antiviral activity of boceprevir monotherapy in treatment-naive subjects with chronic hepatitis C genotype 2/3. In: Proceedings of the 21st Conference of the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver; 17–20 February 2011; Bangkok, Thailand.

53. Medivir AB. Medivir announces final results from TMC435 phase IIb ASPIRE (C206) Study. (Press release); 2011. http:// 2011.

54. Fried MW, Buti M, Dore G, et al. TMC435 in combination with peginterferon and ribavirin in treatment-naive HCV genotype 1 patients: final analysis of the PILLAR Phase IIb Study. In: Abstracts of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD ), 4–8 November 2011; San Francisco. Abstract LB-52011.

55. Schmitz U, Tan SL. NS5A: from obscurity to new target for HCV therapy. Recent Pat Antiinfect Drug Discov 2008; 3:77–92.

56. Gao M, Nettles RE, Belema M, et al. Chemical genetics strategy identifies an HCV NS5A inhibitor with a potent clinical effect. Nature 2010; 465:96–100.

57. Chayama K, Takahashi S, Kawakami Y. Dual oral combination therapy with the NS5A Inhibitor BMS-790052 and the NS3 protease inhibitor BMS-650032 achieved 90% sustained virologic response (SVR12) in HCV genotype 1b-infected null responders. In: Abstracts of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD 2011); 4–8 November 2011; San Francisco. abstract LB-4.

58. Lok AS, Gardiner DF, Lawitz E, et al. Preliminary study of two antiviral agents for hepatitis C genotype 1. N Engl J Med 2012; 366:216–224.

59▪. Gane EJ, Stedman CA, Hyland RH. Once Daily PSI-7977 plus RBV: pegylated interferon-alfa not required for complete rapid viral response in treatment-naive patients with HCV GT2 or GT3. In: Abstracts of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD 2011); 4–8 November 2011; San Francisco. abstract 34.

First demonstration of 100% cure in treatment-naive HCV patients regardless of PEGIFN status in a clinical trial.

60. Gane E, Stedman C, Anderson J, et al. 100% rapid virologic response for PSI-7977 + ribavirin in genotype 1 null responders (ELECTRON): early viral decline similar to that observed in genotype 1 and genotype 2/3 treatment-naive patients. In: Abstracts of the 19th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI 2012); 5–8 March 2012; Seattle, WA. abstract 54LB.

61. Pockros P, Jensen D, Tsai N, et al. First SVR data with the nucleoside analogue polymerase inhibitor mericitabine (RG7128) combined with peginterferon/ribavirin in treatment-naive HCV G1/4 patients: interim analysis from the JUMP-C trial. EASL. In: Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting; 30 March–3 April 2011; Berlin, Germany.

62. Watashi K, Ishii N, Hijikata M, et al. Cyclophilin B is a functional regulator of hepatitis C virus RNA polymerase. Mol Cell 2005; 19:111–122.

63. Flisiak R, Pawlotsky JM, Crabbe R, et al. Once daily alisporivir (DEB025) plus Peg-IFN-alfa-2A/ribavirin results in superior sustained virologic response (SVR24) in chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 treatment-naïve patients: The ESSENTIAL study. EASL; 31 March 2011 Berlin, Germany.

64. Sulkowski M, Dieterich D, Sherman K, et al. Interim analysis of a phase 2a double-blind Study of TVR in combination with PEGIFN-a2a and RBV in HIV/HCV co-infected patients. In: Proceedings of the 18th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; 27 February–2 March 2011; Boston.

65▪. Dieterich D, Soriano V, Sherman K, et al. Telaprevir in combination with peginterferon alfa-2a/ribavirin in HCV/HIV co-infected patients: SVR12 interim analysis. In: Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI 2012); 5–8 March 2012; Seattle, WA.

First clinical data on the effectiveness of TVR in HCV treatment in HCV/HIV coinfected patients.

66▪. Sulkowski M, Pol S, Cooper C, et al. Boceprevir + pegylated interferon + ribavirin for the treatment of HCV/HIV-coinfected patients: end of treatment (week 48) interim results. In: Abstracts of the 19th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI 2012); 5–8 March 2012; Seattle, WA. abstract 47.

First clinical data on the effectiveness of BOC in HCV treatment in HCV/HIV coinfected patients.

67. van Heeswijk R, Vandevoorde A, Boogaerts G, , et al. Pharmacokinetic interactions between ARV agents and the investigational HCV protease inhibitor TVR in healthy volunteers. In: Proceedings of the 18th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections Boston; 27 February–2 March 2011; Boston.

68. Kasserra C, Hughes E, Treitel M, et al. Clinical pharmacology of boceprevir: metabolism, excretion, and drug-drug interactions. In: Proceedings of the 18th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; 2 March–27 February 2011; Boston, MA.

69▪. Kiser JJ, Burton JR, Anderson PL, Everson GT. Review and management of drug interactions with boceprevir and telaprevir. Hepatology 2012. [Epub ahead of print]

Comprehensive review of drug interactions with telaprevir and boceprevir.

70. Amin J, Kaye M, Skidmore S, et al. HIV and hepatitis C coinfection within the CAESAR study. HIV Med 2004; 5:174–179.

71. Zhou J, Dore GJ, Zhang F, et al. C virus coinfection in The TREAT Asia HIV Observational Database. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007; 22:1510–1518.

72. Walsh N, Higgs P, Crofts N. Recognition of hepatitis C virus coinfection in HIV-positive injecting drug users in Asia. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2007; 45:363–365.

73. van Sighem AI, Gras LA, Reiss P, et al. Life expectancy of recently diagnosed asymptomatic HIV-infected patients approaches that of uninfected individuals. AIDS 2010; 24:1527–1535.

74. Porter K, Babiker A, Bhaskaran K, et al. Determinants of survival following HIV-1 seroconversion after the introduction of HAART. Lancet 2003; 362:1267–1274.

75. Perez-Hoyos S, Ferreros I, del Amo J, et al. Survival and progression to AIDS in a seroconverter cohort in the posthighly active antiretroviral therapy era: effectiveness goes on. AIDS 2006; 20:289–291.

76. Rueda S, Park-Wyllie LY, Bayoumi AM, et al. Patient support and education for promoting adherence to highly active antiretroviral therapy for HIV/AIDS. Cochrane database Syst Rev 2006; 3:CD001442.

77. Simoni JM, Pearson CR, Pantalone DW, et al. Efficacy of interventions in improving highly active antiretroviral therapy adherence and HIV-1 RNA viral load. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2006; 43 (Suppl 1):S23–S35.

78. Goldie SJ, Paltiel AD, Weinstein MC, et al. Projecting the cost-effectiveness of adherence interventions in persons with human immunodeficiency virus infection. Am J Med 2003; 115:632–641.

79. Bozzette SA, Gifford AL. The economic viability of antiretroviral adherence interventions. Am J Med 2003; 115:672–673.


direct-acting antivirals; hepatitis C; HIV; injecting drug use; people who inject drugs

© 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.


Article Level Metrics

Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may modify the keyword list to augment your search.