Despite reduction of hepatitis C prevalence after recognition of the virus and testing of blood products, hemodialysis (HD) patients still comprise a high risk group. The natural history of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in dialysis is not fully understood while the clinical outcome differs from that of the general population. HD patients show a milder liver disease with lower aminotransferase and viral levels depicted by milder histological features on liver biopsy. Furthermore, the “silent” clinical course is consistent with a slower disease progression and a lower frequency of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Potential explanations for the “beneficial” impact of uremia and hemodialysis on chronic HCV infection are impaired immunosurveillance leading to a less aggressive host response to the virus and intradialytic release of “hepatoprotective” cytokines such as interferon (IFN)-α and hepatocyte growth factor. However, chronic hepatitis C is associated with a higher liver disease related cardiovascular and all-cause mortality of HD patients. Therapy is indicated in selected patients groups including younger patients with low comorbidity burden and especially renal transplant candidates, preferably after performance of a liver biopsy. According to current recommendations, choice of treatment is IFN or pegylated interferon with a reported sustained viral response at 30%-40% and a withdrawal rate ranging from 17% to 30%. New data regarding combination therapy with low doses of ribavirin which provide higher standard variable rates and good safety results, offer another therapeutic option. The new protease inhibitors may be the future for HCV infected HD patients, though data are still lacking.

The prevalence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection worldwide is 3% and the infected people are estimated at 170 millions. Prevalence rates in Africa, America, Europe and South-East Asia are under 2.5%. In the Western Pacific regions the average ranges between 2.5% and 4.9% while in some parts of the Middle East HCV prevalence reaches 13%[1-3]. In Greece, a survey among 7016 hemodialysis (HD) patients conducted by the Hellenic Center for Infectious Diseases Control and the Hellenic Society of Nephrology in 2003, revealed a mean anti-HCV prevalence of 7.5%. Before 1990, the main routes of HCV transmission were blood product transfusions, intravenous drug use and unsafe medical procedures. Since the systematic screening of blood products, the risk of HCV infection related to transfusions is extremely low (1/20000000)[4]. Currently, the main sources of HCV infection are intravenous drug use, unsafe medical procedures, mother-to-child transmission and the use of unsterilized materials in activities such as acupuncture and tattooing. Household and sexual transmission is extremely low. The dialysis-related risk is estimated at 2% per year. There is a wide range in the prevalence of HCV infection among HD patients in different parts of the world, varying from 1% to 90%. In northern Europe the prevalence rate is less than 5%, in southern Europe and the United States around 10% and in many countries of northern Africa, Asia and South America ranges between 10%-70%[2]. With the systematic screening of blood products and the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, the risk of transfusion related HCV infection in dialysis patients has dramatically decreased; however, they continue to comprise a “high-risk” group In several studies, the prevalence of HCV infection correlated strongly with time on dialysis, independently of the burden of transfusions and it was higher in HD than in peritoneal dialysis or home HD patients. These data strongly suggest that nosocomial transmission plays a crucial role[5]. Therefore, the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) workgroup for the prevention of HCV transmission in dialysis patients focused on the implementation of hygienic precautions concerning the staff of HD units and the sterilization of the dialysis machines. Of major importance is the fact that isolation of HCV infected patients does not seem to protect against HCV transmission in HD units and therefore it is not recommended[2].

A total of 6 different genotypes and multiple subtypes of HCV, each with a different geographic distribution have been identified. Genotype 1 is the most prevalent genotype worldwide. Subtype 1b is more frequent in Europe and Japan while subtype 1a in the United States. Genotype 2 is prevalent in North America, Europe, Japan (Subtypes a and b) and in northern Italy (subtype c). Genotype 3a is frequently seen in India and in European and American drug abusers while genotype 4 is encountered in North Africa, Middle East and among European drug abusers. Genotype 5 has been found in South Africa, genotype 6 in Hong Kong, genotypes 7, 8, 9 in Vietnam and genotypes 10 and 11 in Indonesia[6-8].

There are no firm data concerning the distribution of HCV genotype among HD patients. In studies conducted in the Netherlands, France, Morocco, Mexico and Turkey, there was a predominance of genotype 1b among patients on HD[9,10]. In a study from the United States, subtype 1a was the most frequent among dialysis patients while in Italian HD patients subtypes 2a and 3a predominated. Some of these studies showed a different genotype distribution in dialysis patients than in the general population, some others did not. In general, subtype 1a seems to be more frequent among HD patients than in the general population[9].

An interesting point is that dialysis patients are susceptible to mixed genotype infections attributed to multiple exposures in the dialysis environment. Mixed infections are not often identified due to their short duration and to the lack of sensitivity of the molecular techniques. When more sensitive techniques were applied, 13% of HCV infected HD patients were diagnosed with a mixed infection. In these patients, one of the transmitted subtypes usually prevails in the course of the disease and it is in general subtype 1a[9,11].

In the general population, acute HCV infection affects 1/100000 subjects per year. In 50%-90% of the cases the infection is asymptomatic. In 30% of cases of acute hepatitis the resolution is spontaneous. Acute hepatitis resolves in 20%-30% of the cases spontaneously while in the vast majority it progresses to chronic hepatitis manifesting with variable, usually mild degrees of inflammation and fibrosis[12,13]. Liver damage is thought to be mediated by HCV-induced host cellular immune response rather by the cytopathic effect of the virus per se[3]. About 10%-40% (average 20%) of patients with chronic HCV infection will end up to cirrhosis in the second or third decade after infection while 1%-23% will develop hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)[3,12,13]. The incidence of HCC in cirrhotic patients is 3% per year while the incidence of death due to complications of cirrhosis is 4% per year. Factors that contribute to fibrosis progression are alcohol consumption, smoking, metabolic syndrome, co-infection with HIV or other hepatotropic viruses while older age at infection is considered as a major negative prognostic factor[14]. The role of viral load and genotype, as risk factors of progression, is debatable[3,12,13]. Chronic active HCV infection may also have extrahepatic impact, such as cryoglobulinemia-associated vasculitis, cutaneous manifestations, ocular lesions, sialadenitis and B-cell lymphoma[3].

The natural history of HCV in dialysis patients is difficult to assess due to inherent disadvantages. The infection in HD patients is usually asymptomatic and serum aminotransferase and Gamma-Glutamyl Transpeptidase levels are typically within the normal range. Moreover, there are concerns about performing liver biopsy in this group of patients because of platelet dysfunction and higher bleeding risk. Most of the studies show a milder HCV-associated liver disease in dialysis patients compared to the general population. In the study by Okuda et al[15], none of the dialysis patients with chronic HCV infection progressed to cirrhosis in contrast to more than ¼ of the infected patients in general population. In the study by Ishida et al[16], including patients from 314 hemodialysis units in Japan, the incidence rates of HCC and cirrhosis (1.8% and 8.6% respectively) in HCV (+) dialysis patients were much lower than in HCV (+) patients without renal disease (15%-20% for cirrhosis and 5%-28% for HCC). In the prospective study by Nakayama et al[17] among 1470 HD patients with follow up of 6 years, the incidence rate of HCC in dialysis patients was 0.6%, whereas in non-dialyzed patients it reached per year 1.2%. Interestingly, there is an inverse correlation with dialysis duration. In the study by Ishida et al[16], the incidence of cirrhosis and HCC in patients who were less than 10 years on dialysis, was higher than for those with dialysis duration of more than 10 years.

As already mentioned, in HD patients setting HCV-induced liver disease runs a more benign course showing a lower incidence of cirrhosis compared to non-uremic patients[16].

Histological findings are strongly supportive of a particularly mild chronic hepatitis type while the demonstration of minimal and mild necroinflammatory activity and lack of immune-related specific features such as lymphoid aggregates and “hepatitic” bile duct lesions, speak in favor of a deficient immune reaction.

Although the factors that “protect” uremic patients from immune mediated liver injury are not very well known, there are some interesting theories for this apparently paradox. Alterations in acquired immunity leading to impaired immune response against pathogens and to inadequate response to vaccinations have been recorded in HD patients[52]. This deficient immune response seems to be multifactorial. There is a defective function of antigen presenting cells (APC’s) in means of co-stimulation via B7-2(CD86) on monocytes leading to ineffective T-cell proliferation and activation[53]. Most studies dealing with uremia and dialysis have focused on T-cell immunity, however B-cell function is also affected in patients with end-stage renal disease. Altered B-cell subpopulations with an imbalance between immature and memory B-cells as well as reduced expression and signaling via the BAFF receptor resulting in reduced B-cell survival and differentiation, have been reported[54,55]. This status of “reduced immunosurveillance” rather than overt “immunosuppression” seems to exert an anti-inflammatory protective effect on dialysis patients with chronic HCV infection.

Another possible pathogenetic mechanism explaining the milder disease profile of hepatitis C in HD patients is that hemodialysis procedure increases the levels of HGF. HGF is a potent mitogen for hepatocytes that promotes liver regeneration and restitution of liver cell loss[56,57]. In a study by Rampino et al[58] in 1999, a marked and sustained release of HGF was observed in HD compared to non-HD patients and this was further associated with milder histological findings and a lower degree of fibrosis. The low viral load as triggering factor of a weak immune reaction has also to be taken into consideration.

Although difficult to establish, there is a true impact of HCV infection on mortality in HD patients. The principal goal of HCV treatment is to decrease liver related mortality. In most studies surrogate endpoint of therapeutic success is virological response. Among virological responses, the most important is SVR defined as undetectable HCV-RNA, measured by a sensitive assay after the completion of 24 wk of therapy.

The currently recommended therapy for CHC in the general population is a combination of pegylated interferon-α (PegIFN-α) and ribavirin (RBV) for 24 wk (genotypes 2 and 3) and 48 wk (genotype1) with achievement of SVR in about 50% of patients[71].

Unfortunately, treatment-related toxicity with IFN-α (influenza-like symptoms, fever, anemia, neutropenia, neuropsychiatric disorders) and with RBV (severe hemolysis) represent a major barrier to successful therapy. Even in the general population a need for dose reduction has been reported in 35%-42% of patients and treatment discontinuation in about 30%[72].

In end stage renal disease patients, although SVR is even slightly better than for non-uremic patients, all treatment options are associated with increased toxicity and higher withdrawal rates[73]. On the other hand, given the enhanced treatment-related toxicity, the high comorbidity and the slow progression of liver disease, there is no rationale to treat all HD patients with HCV viremia. According to the KDIGO Guidelines, the ERBP Work Group considers that “treatment should be mainly considered for younger patients without major comorbidities and that “the decision to treat should be thoroughly discussed with the patients, particularly if they are infected with genotype 1”. They also suggest to “try to clear HCV in transplant candidates by appropriate treatment”.

Treatment options are the same as for the general population. Conventional IFN-α, pegylated IFN-α (α-2α or α-2β) or combination of IFN with RBV. Given the altered pharmacokinetics in HD and the high treatment related toxicity, the recommended doses in HD are: conventional IFN (2α or 2β) 3MU three times weekly or reduced doses of pegIFN2α 135 μg/wk or 2β 1 μg/kg weekly whereas RBV is not recommended, but it has been used in clinical trials under strict monitoring of anemia in combination with high doses of erythropoietin. Results from five meta-analyses with IFN therapy and from studies with more than 10 patients which received combined therapy with RBV, are summarized in Table 3. Conventional IFN treatment monotherapy resulted in SVR in 33%-45% of HD patients, though with a withdrawal rate from 17%-30%. As shown in Table 3 the response to PegIFN monotherapy is comparable to slightly better than to conventional IFN with a reported discontinuation rate of 23%-28% in three studies and 0%-20% in one. Combination therapy leads to SVR in 40%-50% of patients with genotype 1 and in 80% of patients with genotypes 2 and 3 while the discontinuation rate is about 33% (Tables 3 and 4)[73-82].

A better understanding of the viral cycle of HCV has resulted in the development of new antiviral drugs, targeting specific enzymes of HCV as protease inhibitors (telaprevir and borceprevir) entry inhibitors, nucleosides and non-nucleosides polymerase inhibitors.

The results of phase II and III trials of the first generation of protease inhibitors (telaprevir and borceprevir) in combination with standard therapy in the general population of HCV infected patients have been very promising including relapsers and partial or null responders[83,84].

In patients with renal failure and hemodialysis, data regarding these new oral antiviral drugs are not available, though they apparently not require dose adjustments to renal function.

Trials with combinations of the new oral antivirals should be the next step in the improvement of care in hemodialysis patients with HCV.

HCV infection remains the major cause of chronic liver disease in HD patients. Although it presents a histologically and clinically milder hepatitis than in the general population -probably related to immunocompromised status and HD procedure- it negatively impacts survival on dialysis. Therapy is indicated in selected cases with acceptable tolerability and clearance of the virus in about one third of the treated patients.