|
The Hepatitis Report: A Critical Review of the Research and Treatment of Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) and Hepatitis & HIV Coinfection by Michael Marco and Jeffrey Schouten, M.D. Version 1.0 July 2000 |
Credits & Acknowledgments Jeffrey Schouten, M.D., Attorney at Law, Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery, University of Washington (UW) is an HIV primary care provider at UW's Harborview Medical Center and Vice-Chair of Washington's Governor's Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS. He is also a member of the Adult AIDS Clinical Trials Group's (AACTG) Community Constituency Group, Executive Committee and Scientific Agenda Steering Committee. Additionally, he is a member of the NCI's AIDS Malignancy Consortium, the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections Planning Committee, and Publications Editor for the Seattle Treatment Education Project (STEP). The Treatment Action Group (TAG) fights to find a cure for AIDS and to ensure that all people living with HIV receive the necessary treatment, care, and information they need to save their lives. TAG focuses on the AIDS research effort, both public and private, the drug development process, and our nation's health care delivery systems. We meet with researchers, industry, and government officials, and resort when necessary to acts of civil disobedience, or to acts of Congress. We strive to develop the scientific and political expertise needed to transform policy. TAG is committed to working for and with all communities affected by HIV. Acknowledgments. First thanks go to the board, staff, consultants, volunteers, and donors of TAG. Special thanks go out to Robert Huff for line-editing of the report, to Andrea Dailey for her forceful and exacting copy-edits, and to board member Lynda Dee of AIDS Action Baltimore, whose generous gift enabled us to print this report. Tremendous thanks goes out to my chief clinical editor, Marion Peters, for her many hours of editing, mentoring, laughter and writing the Foreword. Likewise, thanks to Thierry Poynard for his keen insight and generosity in writing The Clinician's View. Thanks to Jay Hoofnagle, Leonard Seeff, Teresa Wright and Douglas Dieterich for helpful instruction and going out of their way to assist me in my research. I must thank the many others who allowed me to interview them or made contributions to this project, including: Yves Benhamou, Clifford Brass, Megan Briggs, Massimo Colombo, Lawrence "Bopper" Deyton, Lorna Dove, Juan Esteban, Judith Fradkin, Jaime Guardia, Roy "Trip" Gulick, Bart Henderson, Joseph Hoffmann, Leslye Johnson, Michael Joyner, Christine Katlama, Brian Klein, David Kleiner, Thomas Kresina, Jay Lalezari, James Learned, Alexandra Levine, Karen Lindsay, Anna Lok, Jules Levin, Patrick Marcellin, Henry Masur, Cindy Mays, Donny Moss, Alison Murray, Chris Papas, Billy Pick, Robert Purcell, Stephen Rossi, Mark Sulkowski, Norah Terrault, David Thomas, Richard Whitley, and Kevin Young. Finally, thanks go out to David Berry, Todd Goodale, Kurt Fulton, Mark Harrington, Rick Leeds, Donna Masini, and Jeffrey Rindler for their support, guidance and fellowship. If you would like more information about TAG, contact us at: Treatment Action Group
350 Seventh Ave., Ste. #1603 New York, New York 10036 (T) 212.972.9022 / (F) 212.971.9019 Internet: http://www.treatmentactiongroup.org First distribution: XIII International AIDS Conference, Durban, South Africa, 9-14 July 2000. .....The disease generally progresses at a snail's pace, requiring the passage of 3 to 4 decades, in most instances, to reach recognizable serious endpoints. It therefore represents a daunting task for the clinical investigator, few of whom are willing to devote their research careers to this exhaustive form of investigation...
LB Seeff, Hepatology 1997; 26:21S-28S.
Because of the ageing phenomena, all [natural history] studies which do not take into account both the age at infection and the duration of infection are meaningless.
T Poynard, e-mail correspondence, 23 June 2000. The patient who has a liver disease wants (or needs) to know about the natural history of the disorder so as to plan for the future. The patient should be informed regarding the likely consequences, important milestones, major complications, and available therapies, all given with a large measure of compassion and sensitivity.
WC Maddrey, AASLD, Postgraduate Course, 1999.
Physicians and patients must carefully weigh the risks (which are clinically significant in the case of treatment with interferon alfa-2b and ribavirin), the benefits (moderate in this instance), and the cost (substantial in this instance) of any treatment option for a disease that has emerged as an important public health problem.
TJ Liang, N Engl J Med 1999; 340:1207.
Forward This TAG report on hepatitis C virus (HCV) is comprehensive and will bring you completely up to date. It runs the gamut of HCV infection with areas of interest for the clinician, allied health care worker and educated patient. It contains information about epidemiology, natural history, diagnosis, pathogenesis and treatment. It is certainly an enormous task to undertake but the authors have been largely very successful. Many of the chapters contain the earliest literature in the area and are current to last month's abstracts. It may be difficult for some of us to read an abstract with the same conviction of fact, as abstracts have not been peer reviewed rigorously, nor is all the data usually available at the time presentation. However, in a fast moving field such as HCV, it allows the reader to know what is "hot" and where the field is heading. We are clearly told what data and trials are peer reviewed, which are confirmed by other investigators and which appear to be "outside the envelope" but interesting none the less. This report is generally superbly referenced and will be of great value to you. The natural history chapter reminds us that not all patients inexorably deteriorate to end-stage liver disease, liver transplantation or death. It is clear that for the large number of years that we have been following patients, some clinicians see the slowest rates of progression whilst others see HCV as "the evil empire". Patients need to know the facts, not colored by drug company hype, or physician preference and this report provides these facts. Only by knowing that not all patients progress, can individuals patients decide whether treatment for them is now or in the future. The epidemiology, risk factors and modes of transmission are well outlined with perhaps an overabundance of information. You can skim it or dive in for the total immersion, whichever is your preference. This is an excellent chapter with clear tables, explaining the high rate of transmission in IVDU patients and the low sexual transmission rate. The diagnosis of HCV is often complex with multiple tests and the confusion of liver biopsy evaluation. Once again the authors have used excellent available reviews and references to present readable current state-of-the-art information. The reader must be cautioned that this area is not well regulated and HCV RNA tests are changing rapidly. In addition, when tests are performed in the hospital setting or the community, often a different laboratory is used at different times (the pressures of managed care). In these cases, one cannot extrapolate from one bDNA to another PCR or even from one PCR to another. Therefore, it is critical that patients and clinicians not put excessive weight on small (less than one log) changes. HCV RNA will change little from patient to patient but a lot from test to test. The area of co-infection with HIV is the youngest in the field and is a moving target. Large cohort studies are lacking and treatment trials are small in number and patient size. This is an area that is receiving a large amount of attention; treatment trials are underway and more hepatologists are becoming involved working side-by-side with infectious disease specialists. The role of HCV in response to HIV therapy is largely unknown. Viral dynamics of HCV is in its infancy, compared to that of HIV. Markers of response to HCV have included genotype, age of acquisition, gender, viral load and amount of fibrosis on liver biopsy. Early studies suggest that these may be superceded by viral dynamics: those with rapid response to interferon therapy are more likely to achieve a sustained response versus those who are slow responders. Only time will tell if this sweeping statement is correct. The chapters on experimental therapies and current treatment are excellent. Once again we are reminded that at best only half of HCV patients respond to current therapies. But only half may need therapy in the long term. Unfortunately clinicians cannot determine which patients will progress to fibrosis and end-stage liver disease and so most patients are treated especially if they have some scarring without cirrhosis. This is an area that requires intensive research from clinical, epidemiological and immunological aspects. Interferon remains the mainstay of therapy with pegylated IFNs providing exciting new advances. By combining IFN to polyethylene glycol, IFN remains in the circulation longer and thus only weekly dosing is required. This results in ease of treatment as well as an apparent higher response rate, including a surprisingly high rate in cirrhotics (<10% in all studies before pegylated IFN). We may need to look carefully at these studies when they are published but early reports are very encouraging. Side effects are not much different from those of daily dose interferon although there may be some populations in whom dose finding is necessary before putting patients on long- acting weekly IFN. Newer therapies aimed at the virus itself have been slow in coming but are clearly the next line of drugs. In particular, ribozymes may be the next "breakthrough" in this area. Immunomodulators have been generally less promising with the exception of IL-10 as an anti-fibrotic. I would recommend this report highly to those who want to be fully informed about the area. Those who need full references; those who may not have the time or inclination to gather the oldest and the latest information; and those who need to delve more deeply into particular areas of this fascinating field will find this report useful. Many scientists and clinicians have worked with Michael Marco to address specific areas of their expertise. It is a testament to them and to Michael that he has produced this informative but easily readable document. Not all of the statements in this report have been validated. You will not agree with all of them. But you will be stimulated to learn more and to keep abreast of new developments after reading these all encompassing chapters. You may not concur with all of the TAG policy recommendations but you will be forced to re-evaluate and think about many important issues surrounding HCV. Good luck and enjoy. Marion Peters is Professor of Medicine and Chief of Hepatology Research, at the University of California, San Francisco. Introduction Clearly the problem of HCV will require a responsible partnership of public and private organizations....If we are to make progress against this perplexing epidemic, careful and disinterested voices must prevail1. Despite the wide publicity about hepatitis C in the media, and the numerous educational conferences and publications in the medical literature, and the dissemination of the NIH consensus statement on hepatitis C, there are significant deficits in the knowledge of primary care physicians regarding hepatitis C2. My appreciation of and desire to study hepatitis C virus (HCV) research is something new. It started off as mere curiosity during my research of AIDS-related opportunistic infections (OIs) when I thought about adding a short chapter on HCV to TAG's OI Report because it was well know that many individuals with HIV are also coinfected HCV. Approximately two years later, it seems laughable that one could simply write a "short chapter" on HCV. It has become apparent to me that there is a need for a thorough study, review, and critical analysis of HCV research. Many AIDS treatment advocates have critically analyzed the numerous facets of HIV clinical and basic research with great aplomb. They have produced a wealth of patient-readable HIV treatment information so that people with HIV/AIDS can become experts in understanding their virus. In my two years of researching HCV, I found that there were only a few HCV treatment advocates, yet none had created one text that contained a complete overview of the virus, analyzed the research, and offered important and sound HCV treatment information as well as policy recommendations to move the field of HCV research forward. Since I have been well trained and mentored in researching and writing such documents on HIV-related complications, I felt I would initiate TAG's Hepatitis Project and write a report on HCV, as well as on hepatitis and HIV coinfection. People with HCV deserve the same tools as those with HIV so that they can become experts about their virus. I quickly realized that people with HCV were not the only ones who needed to become experts. I found that many primary care physicians lack a complete breath of knowledge of the epidemiology and clinical management of HCV. This was blatantly obvious in the 1999 Hepatology article, "Current Practice Patterns of Primary Care Physicians in the Management of Patients with Hepatitis C" by Shehab and colleagues from Anna Lok's group at the University of Michigan.2 In a survey of over 400 primary care physicians from the Detroit area, 20% and 8%, respectively, considered blood transfusion in 1994 and casual household contact as significant risk factors for HCV; 43% overestimated the likelihood of a sustained response to a course of interferon therapy, while 29% had no idea what the sustained response rate was; 38% would not a refer an HCV antibody-positive patient to a gastroenterologist even though they had no experience in treating HCV patients on their own. Another study by Villano and colleagues from Johns Hopkins found that a majority of the intravenous-drug-using patients in their natural history cohort tested HCV antibody-positive their first time on study yet were under the care of clinic or primary care physicians.3 This striking lack of awareness by health care providers about HCV epidemiology, risk factors, and clinical management is unacceptable. Let us hope that this report gets into the hands of the physicians and patients who need it. I also wrote the report in an attempt to quell the mass hysteria about HCV created by major weekly news magazines as well as by the obnoxious "get tested, get treated" HCV advertising campaign of a greedy pharmaceutical company. The push to immediately treat everyone who tests positive for HCV made my blood boil, because that is often the same message given to those who initially test positive for HIV. For HIV, we have only clinical endpoint studies documenting a survival advantage to starting potent, combination antiretroviral therapy before a patient's CD4 count drops below 200 cell/m3, yet with both viruses, we still have not fully answered the question, When should one initiate antiviral therapy? (i.e., "When to start?"). This HCV report attempts to answer that question and documents what we know and what we don't know about the epidemiology, natural history, diagnosis, and treatment of HCV. After an exhaustive analysis of peer-reviewed articles, over 40 researchers, clinicians, primary care physicians, government heath administrators, industry representatives, and patients with viral hepatitis were interviewed. Research and treatment policy recommendations have been issued and will need to be implemented in order to carefully find answers to the many basic and clinical science questions in HCV research. This large reportwhich will grow still larger in version 2.0 to include an analysis of the research and treatment of hepatitis viruses A and B (HAV and HBV)is a collaborative effort. Jeffrey Schouten was a great partner who worked with me over these two years, and he wrote selected HCV chapters and the section on hepatitis and HIV coinfection. Expert hepatitis researchers, including Marion Peters, Thierry Poynard, Teresa Wright, Jay Hoofnagle, Leonard Seeff, and Douglas Dieterich went out of their way in varying capacities to help me, an AIDS treatment advocate they had never met. More collaborative and concentrated efforts on the part of industry, physicians, government, and the hepatitis community alike are needed if we are to effectively challenge, overcome, and cure HCV. 1 The Lancet. Making sense of hepatitis [editorial]. Lancet 352:1485, 1998. 2 Shehab T, Sonnad SS, Jeffries M, et al. Current practice patters of primary care physicians in the management of patients with hepatitis C. Hepatology 30:794-800, 1999. 3 Villano SA, Vlahov D, Nelson KE, et al. Persistence of viremia and the importance of long-term follow-up after acute hepatitis C infection. Hepatology 29:908-14, 1999. Epidemiology, Modes of Transmission, Background Because primary infection was usually asymptomatic or, at worst, mild, clinicians did not initially consider NANBH to be a very serious disease. It was soon recognized, however, that the seemingly benign NANBH could develop into a chronic hepatitis with markedly elevated liver enzymes. Sometimes the hepatitis resulted in cirrhosis. According to the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) Harvey Alter, attitudes to NANBH changed in the late 1980s: In 1988 Choo and colleagues characterized the hepatitis C virus (HCV), and shortly thereafter, an antibody test was developed to detect infection (Choo 1989; Kuo 1989). When NIH researchers performed HCV assays on archived blood samples, it was determined that 70% to 90% of NANBH cases were actually HCV infections. Prevalence of HCV Infection in the United States (U.S.) A recently published study by Miriam Alter and colleagues from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that an estimated four million persons nationwide are HCV- antibody-positive (ab+), indicating exposure to the virus. Roughly three-quarters of these have detectable HCV RNA, indicating chronic infection (MJ Alter, 1999b). These data hail from the CDC’s third National Health and Nutrition Examination Study (NHANES III), conducted between 1988 and 1994, and involving a sample of almost 40,000 persons between the ages of 2 and 89 years. Out of this group, 21,241 individuals agreed to be both interviewed and tested for antibodies to HCV; of these, 1.8% were found to be HCV-antibody-positive. For the entire U.S., this corresponds to approximately 3.9 million residents infected with HCV. Below is a breakdown of the prevalence of HCV-antibody-positivity classified by race or ethnic group and gender. Prevalence of Antibody to HCV (Anti-HCV) * P<0.05 for comparison with non-Hispanic whites (MJ Alter 1999b) HCV Prevalence in Blood Donors in Southern Europe HCV Incidence Rates in Six Large Southern European Cohorts HCV Prevalence in Egypt Modes of Transmission and Risk Groups Blood Transfusion Recipients and Hemophiliacs before 1992 Before 1985, the rate of HCV infection in hemophiliacs who received clotting factor concentrates prepared from plasma pools was at least 90% (CDC 1998). Factor VIII and Factor IX, which inactivated blood-borne viruses such as HCV, were introduced in 1985 and 1987, respectively. Injection Drug Users The risk of contracting HCV from shared injection equipment is extraordinarily high-and not only for long-term IV drug users. A study by Garfein and colleagues at Johns Hopkins documented that the risk of acquiring HCV infection was as high 65% for new injectors within 6 to 12 months after beginning injection drug use (Garfein 1996). The risk of acquiring HCV is markedly higher than that of acquiring other viral infections such as HIV. The same study documented a rate of HIV infection among IDUs during this brief window of only 14%. With regard to non-injectable drug use, intranasal cocaine use was reportedly associated with HCV infection in a study conducted by Conry-Cantilena from Harvey Alter's group at the NIH (Conry-Cantilena 1996). Finding a highly significant correlation in a multivariate analysis, the author theorized that if the device shared for snorting cocaine (a straw) was contaminated with blood, it could convey virus to denuded nasal mucosa, allowing HCV to enter the bloodstream. This possible mode of transmission-referred to by some as the "bloody straw" theory-was highly debated, and in 1998, the CDC listed intranasal cocaine users in the category of "Persons for whom routine hepatitis C (HCV) testing is of uncertain need" (CDC 1998). It appears that this finding by Corny-Cantilena and colleagues may have been a fluke, or merely that intranasal cocaine use is a surrogate for other behavior which could foster HCV transmission. More recently Murphy and colleagues, of the NHLBI Retrovirus Epidemiology Donor Study (REDS), published a study reporting that, in a multivariate logistic regression model, intranasal cocaine use (or use of any other powered drug) was not a risk factor for HCV (Murphy 2000). Occupational (Needlestick) Exposure Percutaneous Exposure in Other Settings Perinatal Transmission Reported rates of mother-to-infant HCV transmission have ranged from 0% to 36% in numerous studies, with higher rates occurring when mothers are HIV-positive (Ohto 1994; Zanetti 1995; Sabatino 1996; Tovo 1997; Granovsky 1998; Resti 1998; Thomas 1998b; Conte 2000). When these data are analyzed together, the average rate of vertical HCV transmission appears to be approximately 5%. Studies have demonstrated that rates of vertical transmission are dependent upon five factors: 1) presence or absence of HCV RNA in the mother; 2) high or low HCV viral load; 3) HIV status of the mother; 4) vaginal vs. caesarean delivery; and 5) breast vs. bottle feeding. The only consistent factor found in studies is that vertical transmission does not occur if the mother is HCV RNA-negative at time of birth. In 20 perinatal HCV transmission studies analyzed by Dore and colleagues, none of the 735 aggregate HCVab+ but HCV RNA-negative women gave birth to an HCV-infected infant (Dore 1997). Some studies have documented a decreased incidence of vertical transmission from mothers with low HCV viral load (HCV RNA levels differ among studies). Other studies, however, have not found this correlation to be significant. Mother’s HCV RNA Level and Its Correlation with There is considerable controversy as to whether the rate of HCV vertical transmission is higher when the mother is also HIV-positive. Many studies have been conducted solely in coinfected pregnant women and others in HCV-positve women with and without HIV. One of the most provocative findings comes from Zanetti and colleagues, a 1995 Italian study which included 116 HCV-positive women22 of whom were coinfected with HIV. Of the 22 coinfected women, 18 had detectable HCV RNA. None of the infants born to 92 HIV-negative women acquired HCV, but 8 of the 22 (36%) infants born to coinfected mothers acquired HCV. While the eight mothers who transmitted HCV had detectable HCV RNA, there was no significant difference in HCV RNA levels between them and the other ten coinfected HCV RNA-positive women (Zanetti 1995). Another Italian study of 245 infants found the incidence of HCV vertical transmission higher in coinfected mothers. Overall, 28 (11.4%) of the 245 infants acquired HCV: 3 of 80 (3.7%) whose mothers had HCV infection alone vs. 25 of 165 (15.1%) whose mothers were coinfected (P<0.01) (Tovo 1997). In a study of solely coinfected mothers, Thomas and colleagues found that the risk of HCV infection was 3.2-fold greater if the infant also acquired HIV compared to HIV-uninfected infants (17.1% of 41 vs. 5.4% of 112, P=0.04). All HCV transmissions were from mothers with HCV RNA viral loads over 2,000,000 copies/mL (Thomas 1998b). A mother's co-infection was found not to be a significant risk factor for transmitting HCV in a New York multicenter study conducted by Granovsky and colleagues (Granovsky 1998). Five of 73 (7%) coinfected mothers transmitted HCV to their infants compared to 2 of 49 HCV+/HIV- mothers (P=0.7). There was also no significant difference in HCV viral load levels between transmitting and non-transmitting mothers. Lastly, an interesting finding about HIV and it's possible enhancement of HCV transmission comes from the largest HCV vertical transmission study yet conducted. In a cohort of 370 anti-HCV-positive women, 15 (4.0%) were coinfected with HIV but did not transmit HCV to their infants. All of the coinfected women were receiving HIV antiretroviral therapy during their pregnancy, and investigators believe that reducing HIV-related immunosuppression may have affected HCV titers and the consequent likelihood of HCV transmission (Conte 2000). A handful of studies have documented modest increases in the rate of HCV vertical transmission to infants delivered vaginally rather than by caesarean section (Tovo 1997; Granovsky 1998). However, larger studies with more patients have not observed any differences due to mode of delivery (Resti 1998; Mast 1999; Conte 2000). HCV transmission through breast feeding has not been considered a route likely source of infection for infants (Kumar 1998). In the vast majority of studies that evaluated breast feeding in infants born to HCV-positive women, no difference has been observed between bottle and breast feeding (Resti 1998; Tovo 1997; Mast 1999; Conte 2000). In fact, the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics do not feel that there is a risk from either breast feeding or vaginal delivery and have chosen not to recommend caesarean section or bottle feeding to HCV-infected mothers without HIV (CDC 1998). Finally, no diagnostic screening criteria for perinatal HCV infection currently exist. Many studies have theorized about the optimal time to determine the infection status of an infant because various patterns have been observed in both infected and uninfected infants of HCV-positive mothers. For example, Conte and colleagues documented that the rate of HCV-positivity at birth for 366 newborns was 100%, but decreased to 90%, 63%, 16%, and 9% after 4, 8, 12, and 18 months respectively (Conte 2000). HCV RNA was detectable in 18 (4.9%) infants at birth, but 16 became negative by month four; and 6 infants who tested negative at birth became positive at month four. With similar findings from a recent CDC-sponsored study, Mast and colleagues concluded that "anti-HCV testing may not be a reliable marker of perinatal HCV infection until the infant is 2 years of age" (Mast 1999). There appear to be as many knowns as unknowns with regard to HCV vertical transmission and the exact prognostic factors which lead to infection. According to Johns Hopkins' David Thomas: Without a randomized clinical trial, perinatal transmission cofactors will be difficult to evaluate conclusively. Even multiple consistent results from observational studies could be misleading....The most conclusive randomized trial would have to include more than 800 mother-infant pairs to detect a twofold increase in transmission with 80% power. (Thomas 1998a) Sexual Transmission Heterosexuals in Long-term Monogamous Relationships Two large studies looking at the sexual transmission among female sex partners of HCV-infected hemophiliac males documented a low transmission rate. Eyster and colleagues and Brettler and colleagues found a sexual transmission rate of 2.6% and 2.7%, respectively (Eyster 1991; Brettler 1992). In an elegant, high-tech study, Zylberberg and colleagues conducted genotypic, sequence and phylogenetic analyses on 24 anti-HCV-positive couples to ascertain if they harbored the same strain of virus (Zylberberg 1999). The mean duration of the partnership was 12 years (range 1 to 36). Serum HCV RNA was detected in both partners in 18 (75%) of the couples and in only one partner in the other 6 (25%) couples. In the 18 couples who had detectable HCV RNA in both spouses, 11 of 18 (61%) had the same genotype while 7 of 18 (39%) did not. Phylogenetic analysis was conducted in 7 of the 12 genetically concordant couples. In three couples, HCV strains differed by 1 to 3 nucleotides with a sequence similarity of 98% (evolutionary distance 0.065) suggesting that these spouses were infected by a common source. The other four couples differed by 4 to 15 nucleotides (evolutionary distance 0.0129) and thus their strains were considered unrelated. Sexual transmission of HCV was, however, ruled out in the three matched couples because all six spouses had at least one identifiable parental risk factor. Sex Workers Homosexuals, People with HIV and STDs, and Sex Partners of IDUs In recent NEJM letters to the editor, CDC's Miriam Alter and Edward Murphy and colleagues from the NHLBI REDS sparred over the plausibility of HCV sexual transmission, citing selected studies to make their cases. Murphy started with, "[a] review of the literature suggests that sexual transmission of HCV is inefficient at best," and Alter countered that "results of both incidence and prevalence studies [show] that high-risk sexual behavior accounts for 15 to 20 percent of HCV infections in the United States." (Murphy 1999; MJ Alter 1999a). Both make statements that are far too general and more importantly do not acknowledge that sex is not a defined act; it means different things to different people, and sexual practices can and do differ widely from household to household. These limitations (i.e., lack of detailing sexual acts or high-risk behavior) are common in a majority of studies reviewed. While some studies document that sleeping with an HIV-positive or HBV-positive individual is a risk factor for transmission, we don't know what was done in bed (if it was in a bed) that created the extra risk. Too often, "high-risk sexual behavior" and "sexual promiscuity" are not defined, nor are we privy to whether condoms were used. Thus, it is the particular sexual act (e.g., insertive vaginal or anal intercourse, oral sex, anal fisting, etc.) that needs to be explored for its risk of HCV transmission. Murphy's belief that sexual transmission is "inefficient at best" is surprising since it contradicts his 1996 JAMA and 2000 Hepatology papers on risk factors for HCV transmission in the REDS cohort, which document that HIV and HBV, and sex with an IDU, respectively, are risk factors in multivariate analyses (Murphy 1996, 2000). Murphy's argument against sexual transmission-even in homosexuals-is weakly supported by a single review article, which fails to note that most studies rejecting the risk of sexual transmission were too small and underpowered to detect such risks (MacDonald 1996). According to Donahue and colleagues, who documented a 1.6% incidence rate of HCV in a cohort of 926 homosexuals, "the small number of HCV-seropositive subjects may have limited the power to identify risk factors for infection" (Donahue 1991). Likewise, Buchbinder aknowledged that the small sample size of her 1994 study (Buchbinder 1994) may have limited its power to find sexual transmission as a risk factor in the multivariate analysis, even though numerous sex acts were identified in the univariate analysis (Susan Buchbinder, personal communication, 2000). It is not surprising that the risk of HCV sexual transmission appears greater for homosexuals than for heterosexuals. From HIV studies, we have excellent data documenting that the risk of transmitting HIV is greater for homosexuals than heterosexuals, for women from men than for men from women, and for anal than vaginal intercourse (Padian 1991; Kingsley 1990). Moreover, specific sex acts as well as the physical condition of an individual play major roles in establishing risk. For example, Moss and colleagues in 1987 documented that douching before anal sex (vs. not douching) was independently associated with HIV seropositivity (OR, 2.2-2.8) (Moss 1987). Chmiel and colleagues from the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) examined numerous types of sexual behavior between homosexual men and found that, aside from unprotected receptive anal intercourse, "the factor most strongly associated with prevalent HIV infection according to a multiple logistic regression model was rectal trauma, a composite variable which included receptive anal fisting, enemas before sex, reporting of blood around the rectum, and the observation of scarring, fissures or fistulas on rectal examination (OR, 7.7)." (Chmiel 1987) While such behaviors are physical symptoms are not universal among all homosexual men, if one partner with HCV has penile sores or ulcers and the other partner has blood around the rectum, fistulas or fissures, it is plausible that there will be blood-to-blood contact and possible HCV transmission. Documentation of specific risk factors like these is necessary in order to 1) elucidate various ways the virus might enter the body; and 2) define specific "high-risk behavior" so that individuals can be counseled about which sexual practices to lower the risk-no matter how small it might be-of contracting HCV. The CDC states that "data indicate overall that sexual transmission of HCV appears to occur, but that the virus is inefficiently spread through this manner." They do, however, call for further research into this controversial area: More data are needed to determine the risk for, and factors related to, transmission of HCV between long-term steady partners as well among persons with high-risk sexual practices, including whether other STDs promote transmission of HCV by influencing viral load or modifying mucosal barriers. (CDC 1998) After this call for more data, it is interesting to see that the CDC in its Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) Infection places both "long-term steady partners of HIV-positive persons" and "persons with a history of multiple sex partners or sexually transmitted diseases" in the same category of "persons for whom routine HCV testing is of uncertain need [emphasis added]" (CDC1998). The CDC and the Infectious Disease Society of America took a more proactive stance in 1999 calling for HIV-infected individuals to be screened for HCV in its revised USPHS/IDSA Guidelines for the Prevention of Opportunistic Infections in People with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (CDC 1999). Acknowledging that many HIV-infected individuals are coinfected with HCV, the guidelines give a nod to the safer-sex practice of condom use: Although the efficiency of sexual transmission of HCV remains controversial, safer-sexual practices should be encouraged, and barrier precautions (e.g., latex condoms) are recommended to reduce the exposure of sexually transmitted diseases. (CDC 1999) Why did it take until 1999 for the CDC to issue such a recommendation? In 1993, University of California-San Francisco (UCSF) epidemiologist Dennis Osmond sounded a calm but serious warning, which appeared to fall on deaf ears: A Warning for Veterans Risk Factors for HCV Infection in San Francisco Veterans: Multivariate Analysis Conclusion References | ||||