You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Hepatology
Original article
Effect of ribavirin on viral kinetics and liver gene expression in chronic hepatitis C
  1. Yaron Rotman1,
  2. Mazen Noureddin1,
  3. Jordan J Feld1,
  4. Jeremie Guedj2,3,
  5. Michael Witthaus1,
  6. Hwalih Han1,
  7. Yoon J Park1,
  8. Su-Hyung Park1,
  9. Theo Heller1,
  10. Marc G Ghany1,
  11. Edward Doo4,
  12. Christopher Koh1,
  13. Adil Abdalla1,
  14. Naveen Gara1,
  15. Souvik Sarkar1,
  16. Emmanuel Thomas1,
  17. Golo Ahlenstiel1,
  18. Birgit Edlich1,
  19. Rachel Titerence1,
  20. Leah Hogdal1,
  21. Barbara Rehermann1,
  22. Harel Dahari2,5,6,
  23. Alan S Perelson2,
  24. Jay H Hoofnagle1,
  25. T Jake Liang1
  1. 1Liver Diseases Branch, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
  2. 2Theoretical Biology and Biophysics Group, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA
  3. 3INSERM, UMR 738, F-75018 Paris, France; Université Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, UMR 738, F-75018 Paris, France
  4. 4Liver Disease Research Branch, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
  5. 5Department of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA
  6. 6Department of Medicine, Division of Hepatology, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Illinois, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Yaron Rotman, NIH, NIDDK, Liver Diseases Branch, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Drive, Building 10, Room 9C434, MSC1800, Bethesda, MD 20892-1800, USA; rotmany{at}mail.nih.gov

Abstract

Objective Ribavirin improves treatment response to pegylated-interferon (PEG-IFN) in chronic hepatitis C but the mechanism remains controversial. We studied correlates of response and mechanism of action of ribavirin in treatment of hepatitis C.

Design 70 treatment-naive patients were randomised to 4 weeks of ribavirin (1000–1200 mg/d) or none, followed by PEG-IFNα-2a and ribavirin at standard doses and durations. Patients were also randomised to a liver biopsy 24 h before or 6 h after starting PEG-IFN. Hepatic gene expression was assessed by microarray and interferon-stimulated gene (ISG) expression quantified by nCounter platform. Temporal changes in ISG expression were assessed by qPCR in peripheral-blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) and by serum levels of IP-10.

Results After 4 weeks of ribavirin monotherapy, hepatitis C virus (HCV) levels decreased by 0.5±0.5 log10 (p=0.009 vs controls) and ALT by 33% (p<0.001). Ribavirin pretreatment, while modestly augmenting ISG induction by PEG-IFN, did not modify the virological response to subsequent PEG-IFN and ribavirin treatment. However, biochemical, but not virological, response to ribavirin monotherapy predicted response to subsequent combination treatment (rapid virological response, 71% in biochemical responders vs 22% non-responders, p=0.01; early virological response, 100% vs 68%, p=0.03; sustained virological response 83% vs 41%, p=0.053). Ribavirin monotherapy lowered serum IP-10 levels but had no effect on ISG expression in PBMC.

Conclusions Ribavirin is a weak antiviral but its clinical effect seems to be mediated by a separate, indirect mechanism, which may act to reset IFN-responsiveness in HCV-infected liver.

  • Hepatitis C
  • Interferon-Alpha

https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2012-303852

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Significance of this study

    What is already known on this subject?

    • Addition of ribavirin improves rates of sustained virological response in patients with chronic hepatitis C treated with interferon or pegylated-interferon.

    • Ribavirin alone exerts a weak, and not always sustained, antiviral effect on hepatitis C virus.

    • In vitro data suggest ribavirin may augment stimulation of gene expression by interferon.

    What are the new findings?

    • Virological response to ribavirin monotherapy does not predict response to pegylated-interferon–ribavirin combination.

    • Biochemical response to ribavirin is not correlated with the virological response and is associated with clinical response to pegylated-interferon–ribavirin combination, suggesting two separate mechanisms.

    • Hepatic expression of interferon-stimulated genes is weakly enhanced with pegylated-interferon–ribavirin combination compared with pegylated-interferon alone.

    How might it impact on clinical practice in the foreseeable future?

    • Better understanding of the mechanism of action may allow selective use of ribavirin in the direct-acting antivirals era.

    Introduction

    Despite recent advances and the approval of direct-acting antivirals1 for chronic hepatitis C, pegylated-interferon (PEG-IFN) and ribavirin (RBV) remain the backbone of treatment. PEG-IFN is thought to exert its activity through induction of interferon-stimulated genes (ISGs), many of which have antiviral effects.2 Combination therapy with RBV markedly improves the response to PEG-IFN3 but RBV monotherapy is not sufficient to achieve viral clearance.4

    The mechanism of action of RBV is unclear. Several mechanisms have been suggested: direct inhibition of the viral RNA polymerase, viral mutagenesis leading to error catastrophe, guanosine triphosphate (GTP) depletion through inhibition of inosine 5'-monophosphate dehydrogenase (IMPDH) or modulation of T cell responses.5–7 Recent in vitro8 and in vivo9 studies have indicated that RBV may act as a potentiator of IFN signalling by augmenting ISG induction. In this study, we aimed to determine the effects of RBV monotherapy and to identify potential mechanisms of action of RBV in the treatment of hepatitis C.

    Methods

    Patients and study design

    We enrolled 70 adult treatment-naive patients with chronic hepatitis C into a prospective, randomised, 2×2, open-label controlled trial. Patients with serious comorbidities, other liver diseases, HIV co-infection, contraindications to liver biopsy or to antiviral therapy were excluded. Patients were randomised evenly to receive 4 weeks of RBV monotherapy (weight-based 1000–1200 mg/d for all genotypes) or no treatment, after which they received combination treatment with PEG-IFN and RBV with standard doses (180 μg/wk of PEG-IFNα-2a for all patients, 800 mg/d of RBV for genotypes 2/3 and 1000–1200 mg/d for all other genotypes) and duration (24 weeks for genotypes 2/3, 48 weeks for all other genotypes). Patients were also randomised to undergo a percutaneous liver biopsy 24 h before or 6 h after the first PEG-IFN injection. This yielded four groups with different drug exposure at the time of the biopsy: group A—no treatment, group B—PEG-IFN alone (with the first dose of RBV given in the evening, 6 h after the biopsy), group C—RBV alone, and group D—PEG-IFN and RBV. Time 0 was defined as the time of the first PEG-IFN injection (figure 1). Randomisation was stratified by genotype (2/3 vs all others) and race (African-American vs all others).

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Study design. Arrows note timing of liver biopsy. *Ribavirin (RBV) dose 1000 mg/d for patients weighing less than 75 kg, 1200 mg/d for heavier patients, irrespective of viral genotype. †RBV dose 800 mg/d for patients with genotype 2/3, weight-based 1000–1200 mg/d for all other genotypes. ‡Treatment duration 24 weeks for genotypes 2/3, 48 weeks for all others. PEG-IFN, pegylated-interferon.

    Patients were seen and blood was drawn on a weekly basis (groups C and D) or every other week (groups A and B) from week −4 to time 0; at 6, 24, 48 and 72 h after the first injection; on a weekly basis from week 1 to week 4; and then every 4–8 weeks until 24 weeks after the end of treatment.

    The study was approved by the NIDDK Institutional Review Board and all patients gave written informed consent (Clinicaltrials.gov registration NCT00718172). None of the authors has a competing interest regarding this study.

    Sample acquisition

    Percutaneous liver biopsies were obtained under conscious sedation and local anaesthesia using a 14G Klatskin needle. A 2–5 mm segment was immediately deposited in RNALater (Qiagen, Valencia, California, USA), maintained at 4°C for 24 h and subsequently stored at −80°C.

    Acid-citrate-dextrose-anticoagulated blood samples were drawn at week −4, 0, 6 h, 24 h, week 1 and week 4 and PBMC were separated immediately on Ficoll–Histopaque (Mediatech, Manassas, Virginia, USA) density gradients. Approximately 1.5×106 cells were placed in 500 μl of TRIzol (Qiagen) and stored at −80°C. Serum samples were drawn on every visit and stored at −80°C.

    Gene expression

    RNA was extracted from thawed liver samples using TRIzol and gene expression was measured using GeneChip Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0 microarray (Affymetrix, Santa Clara, California, USA). Microarray results were deposited in the GEO database (GSE38663).

    Hepatic expression of ISGs was quantified using the nCounter Gene Expression assay10 (NanoString, Seattle, Washington, USA). The custom code set contained genes that were found to be significantly affected by PEG-IFN (group B) in the microarray data (more than threefold change), genes that were shown to affect hepatitis C virus (HCV) in a culture model,2 and the genes for IFNs α, β, γ and λ (see online supplementary table 1). An amount of 100 ng of total RNA from the liver biopsy samples was used. Results were normalised by the expression of four housekeeping genes.

    RNA from frozen PBMCs was extracted using RNeasy Mini (Qiagen) and cDNA was synthesised using First-Strand cDNA (Origene, Rockville, Maryland, USA). Expression of candidate genes was measured using quantitative PCR with FastStart TaqMan Probe Master mix (Roche, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA) and primers (Integrated DNA Technologies, Coralville, Iowa, USA).

    Cytokine measurements

    Serum cytokine levels were measured on thawed serum samples using cytometric bead array (BD Biosciences, San Jose, California, USA).

    Viral and biochemical kinetics

    Serum HCV-RNA level was measured using a COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan HCV Test with a lower limit of detection of 10 IU/ml and lower limit of quantification of 25–43 IU/ml. Virological and biochemical responses to RBV monotherapy were defined to capture responses that are significantly greater than the natural variation in viral levels in untreated patients. Using the 90% percentile of variations in viral levels and alanine transaminase (ALT) in controls as a reference, we defined virological response to RBV as ≥0.5 log10 decline from baseline (week −4) to time 0, or ≥0.3 log10 decline at both week −1 and time 0. In the same fashion, biochemical response to RBV monotherapy was defined as >33% decline in ALT activity from week −4 to week 0. The first phase decline after PEG-IFN was defined as the logarithmic decline in viral level from time 0 to the nadir during the first 3 days post-injection. The second phase slope was the slope of the viral level decline from week 1 to week 4, or to the first non-quantifiable measurement if it occurred earlier. Non-quantifiable or non-detectable measurements were imputed conservatively as the lower limit of quantification or detection, respectively. Rapid virological response (RVR) was defined as a negative serum HCV-RNA on week 4 of combination therapy. Early virological response (EVR) was defined as ≥2 log10 decline from time 0 or undetectable virus at week 12. A sustained virological response (SVR) was defined as a negative HCV-RNA result at least 24 weeks after stopping treatment.

    End points and statistical analyses

    The study was designed to compare the effects of RBV on viral levels and hepatic gene expression before and after the addition of PEG-IFN. We did not hypothesise that RBV pretreatment would affect overall clinical response to treatment and, therefore, achievement of SVR was not a primary end-point.

    Microarray and nCounter data were analysed using Partek Genomics Suite 6.5 (Partek Inc., St. Louis, Missouri, USA) using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for treatment-group assignment and presence of cirrhosis. Pathway analysis was performed using IPA (Ingenuity Systems, Redwood City, California, USA). Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics V.19 (IBM), Prism V.5.0a (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, California, USA) and Excel 2008 (Microsoft). Non-parametric tests were used when appropriate. Significance level for all analyses was set at α<0.05. The false detection rate method11 was used to correct for multiple comparisons in microarray and the nCounter assay with q<0.05.

    Results

    A total of 70 patients were enrolled between September 2008 and September 2011 (table 1). The groups were well balanced for most parameters, apart from cirrhosis, which was more frequent in group D.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Patient characteristics

    Virological and biochemical response to RBV

    During the 4 weeks leading to combination PEG-IFN and RBV, serum HCV-RNA levels in control patients (groups A and B) did not change (6.3±0.6 log10 IU/ml at week −4 vs 6.3±0.7 at time 0, p=0.51, paired t test). In contrast, patients who were pretreated with RBV monotherapy (groups C and D) displayed a decline in viral levels over the 4 weeks of pretreatment at a rate of 0.13±0.13 log10/week (p<0.0001, repeated-measures ANOVA) (figure 2A). At time 0, the viral level for patients treated with RBV was 0.55±0.53 log10 lower than their level at baseline (p<0.001, paired t test), and was also lower than that of untreated patients at time 0 (p=0.009, t test) (figure 2A). In all, 19 treated patients (58%) met the criterion for virological response to RBV with an average virological decline of 0.83±0.53 log10 over 4 weeks of RBV therapy; there was large between-patient variability in temporal pattern and magnitude of response, including patients demonstrating early and late responses, primary non-response and a pattern of rapid response followed by a virological rebound (see online supplementary figure 1). In contrast, only 2 (6%) of untreated patients met the criterion for virological response, both of whom had marked fluctuations of HCV-RNA levels at baseline.

    Figure 2
    Figure 2

    Effect of ribavirin (RBV) monotherapy for 4 weeks on serum levels of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-RNA (A) and ALT activity (B). Solid line—RBV treatment. Dotted line—untreated controls. Mean ± SE.

    No baseline factor was associated with the virological decline in response to RBV, including age, gender, race, body mass index, baseline HCV-RNA, ALT and fibrosis. The average decline from week −4 to time 0 was numerically greater in patients with genotype 2/3 infection, compared with genotype 1, but was not statistically significant (−0.76±0.76 vs −0.49±0.37 log10, p=0.32, t test).

    RBV monotherapy was also associated with a linear decline in serum ALT activity with a slope of 10 U/l per week (p<0.0001, repeated-measures ANOVA). During the 4 weeks, ALT levels decreased by 31±20% in RBV pretreated patients (mean decreasing from 98 to 60 U/L) but did not change in controls (3±21%, p<0.001, t test, mean decreasing from 90 to 87 U/l) (figure 2B). A biochemical response was achieved in 14 (40%) of the patients pretreated with RBV. The relative decline in ALT during RBV pretreatment was greater for patients with lower baseline viral level (r=0.58, p<0.001) and higher baseline ALT activity (r=−0.54, p=0.001), but was not associated with any other baseline factor, including viral genotype (p=0.21). There was no correlation between biochemical and virological responses (see online supplementary figure 2A).

    Haemoglobin levels decreased after 4 weeks of RBV by 2.3±1.2 g/dl. There was no need for dose reduction during this phase. Haemoglobin decrease was not associated with the decrease in HCV-RNA but was positively, albeit weakly, correlated with the decrease in ALT (Spearman's rho=0.36, p=0.046, see online supplementary figure 2B).

    Effect of RBV pretreatment on subsequent response to PEG-IFN and RBV

    Virological response to PEG-IFN and RBV combination was not affected by RBV pretreatment (table 2). At the start of combination treatment, viral levels were lower by 0.5 log10 in patients who received RBV, as a result of prior monotherapy. This difference persisted until day 7 of treatment, after which no further difference was seen (figure 3A,B). RBV pretreatment had no effect on rates of RVR, EVR or SVR (table 2). The results were similar when analysis was limited to patients with genotype 1 infection (table 2) and when the analysis was controlled for the presence of cirrhosis (data not shown).

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Parameters of early viral kinetics by PEG-IFN treatment and treatment response

    Figure 3
    Figure 3

    Virological response to pegylated-interferon (PEG-IFN) and ribavirin (RBV) of patients pretreated with 4 weeks of RBV monotherapy and controls during the first 7 days (A) and weeks 1–4 (B) of combination treatment. Virological response to PEG-IFN and RBV combination therapy stratified by virological (C) and biochemical (D) responses to previous RBV monotherapy. Means ± SE. HCV, hepatitis C virus.

    Although RBV pretreatment itself did not affect response to subsequent combination therapy, among the patients who were pretreated with RBV, virological response to pretreatment was associated with slightly better viral kinetics after the addition of PEG-IFN, compared with virological non-responders, but the difference was not significant, except for first phase decline in patients with genotype 1 (table 2, figure 3C). Biochemical response to RBV, on the other hand, was significantly associated with improved virological response to subsequent combination treatment (table 2, figure 3D). Patients whose ALT decreased by >33% on RBV monotherapy had higher rates of RVR, EVR and SVR and multivariable logistic regression showed biochemical, but not virological, response to RBV pretreatment to be associated with RVR (OR=9.4, 95% CI 1.8 to 48.5, p=0.008 for biochemical and OR=1.8 (0.3 to 9.8), p=0.49 for virological response) and with SVR (OR=7.6 (1.2 to 48.1), p=0.031 for biochemical and OR=2.1 (0.4 to 11.6), p=0.38 for virological response). Similar findings were seen when the analysis of SVR predictors was limited to genotype 1 patients (OR=2.6 (0.2 to 32.1), p=0.46 for virological response to RBV pretreatment, OR=16 (0.97 to 268), p=0.053 for biochemical response).

    Effect of RBV on hepatic gene expression

    Hepatic gene expression was assessed by microarray in 52 patients (15 in group A, 14 in B, 11 in C and 12 in group D). Samples were not available from 18 patients; in four (two each from groups C and D) the biopsy was cancelled because of RBV-induced anaemia as prespecified by the protocol, two patients (groups C and D) refused biopsy, seven had insufficient samples for analysis (one, two, two and two subjects from treatment groups A, B, C and D, respectively) and five were enrolled after the microarray analysis was done. As expected, we found a significant effect of PEG-IFN on hepatic gene expression; 314 probes, reflecting 243 unique transcripts, were significantly different between group B and group A, with 213 transcripts upregulated and 30 downregulated (see online supplementary table 2). In contrast, no significant effect on hepatic gene expression was detected for RBV alone compared with controls (group C vs group A) nor for adding RBV to PEG-IFN compared with PEG-IFN alone (group D vs group B).

    To determine whether the magnitude of treatment response to RBV was related to gene expression profiles, we analysed hepatic gene response after 4 weeks of RBV pretreatment (group C only) and compared patients who had a virological response to RBV pretreatment (n=8) with those who did not (n=3). No genes were significantly different in expression using the strict significance false detection rate criteria. Using a less stringent criterion (p<0.001), only eight of 54 613 microarray targets were different between the two groups, and these were not able to correctly cluster patients according to treatment assignment (see online supplementary figure 3A,B). In contrast, when comparing biochemical responders (n=4) within group C with non-responders (n=7), 48 transcripts (see online supplementary table 3) were differentially expressed using the less stringent criterion and these genes clustered patients into two distinct groups, within which patients were clearly separated according to treatment assignment (see online supplementary figure 3C,D). Pathway analysis did not identify a specific pathway associated with these transcripts.

    Although RBV did not affect overall hepatic gene expression, we tested whether it had a specific effect on hepatic ISG expression. We used the nCounter Gene Expression assay to analyse the expression of 135 ISGs in liver biopsy samples (see online supplementary table 4) from 54 patients (16 from group A, 14 group B, 12 group C and 12 from group D), including 51 that were analysed by microarray (one excluded because of insufficient RNA) and three additional patients who enrolled after the microarray analysis. When comparing PEG-IFN in combination with RBV to PEG-IFN alone (group D vs B), the overall hepatic ISG expression, obtained by averaging the individual ISG expression levels, was higher for the combination group (figure 4, p<0.001). In contrast, the average expression of ISGs in group C (RBV alone) was lower than in group A (control, p<0.001). No specific ISG could be identified to show a significant induction in these analyses (examples in online supplementary figure 4), either when analysing data from all of the patients or when limiting it to the 30 patients with genotype 1. The average ISG expression in group D (PEG-IFN/RBV) was 6.6-fold higher than that in group C (RBV alone), while the ratio of average ISG expression between group B (PEG-IFN alone) to group A (controls) was 4.5 (p=0.008, Mann–Whitney), suggesting a stronger induction of ISGs by PEG-IFN in the presence of RBV. Among patients pretreated with RBV (group C only), average and individual ISG expression did not differ between patients with good virological response to RBV and those without it, nor did it differ between biochemical responders and non-responders. Consistent with previous observations,9 ,12 expression of ISGs was higher in patients treated with PEG-IFN, and patients who subsequently did not respond to treatment had higher ISG expression prior to PEG-IFN (figure 5).

    Figure 4
    Figure 4

    Average hepatic expression level of 135 interferon-stimulated genes according to treatment at the time of liver biopsy, (A) expressed in arbitrary units (mean ± SE) or (B) as fold induction relative to the average expression in controls (geometric mean ± 95% CI). Significance tested using Wilcoxon's signed-ranks test. PEG-IFN, pegylated-interferon; RBV, ribavirin.

    Figure 5
    Figure 5

    Hierarchical clustering of patients according to the hepatic expression of 135 interferon-stimulated genes (nCounter assay). The colour labels at the bottom mark whether tissue was obtained before the initial pegylated-interferon (PEG-IFN) injection (red: groups A and C) or 6 h after the first injection (blue: groups B and D). Subsequent responses after 12 weeks of combination treatment are labelled beneath colour code as cEVR (complete early virological response, non-detectable virus at week 12), pEVR (partial EVR, > 2 log10 decline but still detectable hepatitis C virus-RNA) or null responder (<2 log10 decline).

    Among the genes for human IFNs, PEG-IFN treatment significantly increased the relative hepatic expression of IFNA4 (p=0.01, Mann–Whitney U), IL28A/B (p<0.001) and IL28RA (p=0.042). RBV numerically decreased the expression of IFNγ with borderline significance (p=0.078) but it had no effect on expression of the other IFN genes nor did it have any effect on their expression when added to PEG-IFN (see online supplementary figure 5).

    ISG expression in PBMC

    Analysis of serial ISG expression in PBMC was performed in 39 patients (20 with RBV pretreatment and 19 controls). We analysed five genes of interest, based on the microarray results (see online supplementary table 2) and previous literature:8 ,12 CD274, ISG15, IRF7, CXCL10 and RSAD2. At baseline, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups in PBMC gene expression. Following 4 weeks of RBV monotherapy, PBMC expression of the five genes did not differ between treated patients and controls. After initiating combination treatment with PEG-IFN, the peak levels of the five genes were numerically lower in the RBV pretreated group, but with no statistical significance, and by week 1 essentially became identical (see online supplementary figure 6A–E).

    Serum IP-10 levels

    Serum levels of IP-10 were measured in 20 patients treated with RBV and 20 controls. As expected, baseline IP-10 levels were higher in patients who subsequently did not respond to the combination treatment (382±225 pg/ml in patients who achieved RVR vs 707±439 pg/ml in those who did not, p=0.004, Mann–Whitney). Four weeks of RBV pretreatment were associated with a decrease in serum IP-10 levels (0.66-fold change vs 1.42 in controls, p<0.001, figure 6A,B). The decrease in IP-10 levels correlated with the decline in HCV-RNA (r=0.74, p=0.006) but not with ALT decline (r=−0.06, p=0.86, see online supplementary figure 7A,B). After starting PEG-IFN treatment, there was a rapid rise in IP-10 levels at 6 h in both groups (6.5-fold in RBV pretreated vs 7.2-fold in controls, p=0.79, Mann–Whitney U), declining back to baseline levels by week 1 (figure 6A). IP-10 serum levels were closely correlated with hepatic CXCL10 gene expression at the same time (groups A and C at time 0, Spearman r=0.68, p=0.005; groups B and D at 6 h after PEG-IFN injection, r=0.72, p=0.001, see online supplementary figure 7C,D). There was no correlation between serum IP-10 levels and PBMC CXCL10 expression at any time point.

    Figure 6
    Figure 6

    Serial measurements of serum IP-10 levels during treatment (A). Solid line—patients treated with ribavirin (RBV) monotherapy on weeks -4 to 0. Dotted line—controls with no pretreatment. (B) Fold change in serum IP-10 levels after 4 weeks of RBV or control and 6 h after injecting interferon.

    Effect of host genetic variations

    Genotype frequencies of the IL28B single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs12979860 are shown in online supplementary table 5. IL28B genotype did not modulate the effect of RBV pretreatment on HCV levels (p=0.61, see online supplementary figure 8). In contrast, patients with rs12979860 CC had a greater decline in ALT after 4 weeks of RBV monotherapy compared with genotypes CT/TT (38±20% vs 23±17%, p=0.035 Mann–Whitney). IL28B genotype did not modify the association between biochemical response to RBV pretreatment and subsequent response to combination therapy. The inosine triphosphatase (ITPA) SNPs rs7270101 and rs1127354, which have been shown to be highly associated with RBV-induced anaemia,13 were genotyped but the frequencies of the minor alleles were too low to allow meaningful analysis.

    Discussion

    RBV is a crucial component of anti-HCV therapy and may remain so even with the addition of direct-acting antivirials.14 ,15 In this study, we sought to determine its mechanism of action and, specifically, whether RBV augments ISG induction by IFN. We show that RBV has a modest antiviral effect against HCV in 58% of subjects, with a mean 0.8 log10 decline from baseline in RBV responders. Clearly this effect is minimal and explains why RBV monotherapy is not an effective strategy towards HCV eradication. Consistent with what Pawlotsky et al16 described, we observed several patterns of response to RBV monotherapy including continuing response, non-response and response followed by breakthrough (see online supplementary figure 2). However the sampling frequency in our study was not sufficient to detect the transient early responses (within week 1 of therapy) reported in that paper.

    We also demonstrate a marked decrease in serum ALT during RBV monotherapy, which was independent of the virological effect of RBV. This is consistent with previous reports showing that RBV monotherapy decreases ALT in the absence of a virological effect, and that the biochemical changes are correlated with histological improvement.17 ,18 The dissociation between the virological and biochemical responses to RBV suggests that RBV may act through more than one mechanism in patients with chronic hepatitis C.

    Although the weak effect of RBV on viral levels was completely offset by addition of PEG-IFN, the biochemical response to RBV was associated with subsequent response to IFN-based therapy. Biochemical responders to RBV showed a faster viral decline after adding PEG-IFN compared with non-responders and had higher rates of RVR, EVR and SVR. Furthermore, RBV-induced decrease in haemoglobin, which was previously shown to be associated with treatment response,19 ,20 was also correlated with biochemical but not virological response to RBV. Thus, the contribution of RBV to treatment seems to be independent of its direct antiviral activity and may be a result of an indirect effect on liver injury and inflammation.

    We were not able to show a significant effect of RBV on overall hepatic gene expression, either alone or in combination with PEG-IFN. However, RBV monotherapy was associated with a lower global expression of ISGs, while addition of RBV to PEG-IFN caused a modest but significant increase in ISG expression. The average fold-increase in ISG expression in the PEG-IFN/RBV group compared with RBV alone was significantly greater than that of PEG-IFN compared with controls. This observation raises the possibility that RBV may act by lowering the baseline ISG expression and resetting the IFN responsiveness in the liver, thereby rendering the liver more permissive to the action of exogenous IFN. This notion is consistent with the concept that a higher baseline ISG expression is associated with IFN non-responsiveness and the relative change in ISG expression is more important than the absolute level in determining downstream effects. As shown in other signalling cascades involving STAT,21 a tight regulation of IFN signalling may be necessary to prevent IFN-refractoriness.22 One possibility is that the enhanced sensitivity to IFN may be driven by a RBV-induced change in the inflammatory milieu, as reflected by the association of biochemical response to RBV with improved response to subsequent PEG-IFN treatment. As our gene expression studies focused on IFN signalling, we cannot rule out an effect of RBV on other cytokines or signalling cascades.

    Our current study can be contrasted with the previous one by Feld et al,9 which showed a significant effect of RBV on hepatic gene expression when added to PEG-IFN. Part of the discrepancy can be explained by differences in study design and analysis. First, in our study we used 4 weeks of RBV monotherapy to ensure achievement of near steady-state RBV blood levels,16 ,23 as opposed to only 3 days by Feld et al. Since ALT and viral levels declined during the 4-week period, hepatic gene expression including ISGs could have changed as well, a possibility that is supported by decreasing serum IP-10 levels with RBV monotherapy (figure 6A, see online supplementary figure 7A). This opposing effect could offset a direct positive effect of RBV on ISG expression, particularly when our biopsy was obtained at week 4. Second, Feld et al examined liver biopsies taken 24 h after the initial PEG-IFN injection, while in this study, a 6 h time point was used to coincide with peak induction of ISGs24 (as can also be seen in PBMC samples in online supplementary figure 6). Theoretically, if RBV augmented hepatic induction of ISGs by affecting the duration of induction and not the peak level, our biopsies would have failed to detect such an effect.

    In lieu of performing serial liver biopsies, we studied the effect of RBV over time on the mRNA expression of five selected ISGs in PBMCs25 ,26 and on the serum protein levels of IP-10, a known ISG. We did not find any effect of RBV on the magnitude and temporal pattern of IFN-induced ISG expression in the PBMCs. IP-10 levels declined during treatment, likely driven by the decline in viral levels, but here as well, the IFN-induced changes were not affected by RBV pretreatment. Finally, the biochemical but not virological response to RBV was associated with host IL28B polymorphism, suggesting a possible link between RBV effect and IFN response in the treatment of hepatitis C.

    When given in combination, it is very difficult to separate the effects of RBV from those of IFN. We therefore used RBV monotherapy as a tool to understand the mechanism of action of RBV and dissect its specific contribution to combined treatment. We have not observed a clinical benefit with RBV pretreatment but our study was not powered, nor was it designed to detect a small clinical effect. However, there was also no effect of pretreatment on early viral kinetics and serum IP-10 once PEG-IFN was started. Taken together, these suggest that the biochemical response to RBV did not prime patients to respond to the subsequent combination but instead, served as a marker to identify a subset of ‘RBV responders’ that could not be identified directly without the use of monotherapy. Whether the weak effect of RBV on hepatic ISG expression is the mechanism by which RBV exerts its biochemical effect remains unclear.

    A small uncontrolled pilot study, published in abstract form only,27 examined 4 weeks of RBV pretreatment in 10 genotype 1 patients who previously failed PEG-IFN and RBV treatment. They observed a similar decline in HCV-RNA levels after 4 weeks of treatment and demonstrated a clinical benefit, with 50% of patients achieving SVR, a rate that is higher than what we achieved in our treatment-naive genotype 1 patients, irrespective of RBV pretreatment. The discrepant clinical results could be due to different demographics.

    In conclusion, our findings support the existence of more than one mechanism for RBV in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C, including a direct antiviral effect and an indirect biochemical effect, potentially through reduction of liver injury through an unknown mechanism. We show that the contribution of RBV to combination treatment seems to be related more to its indirect effect than to its antiviral activity, possibly by resetting the liver's inflammatory state and making it more responsive to exogenous PEG-IFN. Further studies are necessary to elucidate this indirect effect, which may provide crucial insights into the mechanism of action of RBV in treatment of hepatitis C.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Ghany MG,
      2. Nelson DR,
      3. Strader DB,
      4. 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;54:1433–44.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    2. ↵
      1. Schoggins JW,
      2. Wilson SJ,
      3. Panis M,
      4. et al
      . A diverse range of gene products are effectors of the type I interferon antiviral response. Nature 2011;472:481–5.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    3. ↵
      1. Fried MW,
      2. Shiffman ML,
      3. Reddy KR,
      4. et al
      . Peginterferon alfa-2a plus ribavirin for chronic hepatitis C virus infection. N Engl J Med 2002;347:975–82.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    4. ↵
      1. Di Bisceglie AM,
      2. Conjeevaram HS,
      3. Fried MW,
      4. et al
      . Ribavirin as therapy for chronic hepatitis C. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1995;123:897–903.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    5. ↵
      1. Brillanti S,
      2. Mazzella G,
      3. Roda E
      . Ribavirin for chronic hepatitis C: and the mystery goes on. Dig Liver Dis 2011;43:425–30.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    6. ↵
      1. Feld JJ,
      2. Hoofnagle JH
      . Mechanism of action of interferon and ribavirin in treatment of hepatitis C. Nature 2005;436:967–72.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    7. ↵
      1. Thomas E,
      2. Ghany MG,
      3. Liang TJ
      . The Application and Mechanism of Action of Ribavirin in Therapy of Hepatitis C. Antivir Chem Chemother 2012;23:112.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    8. ↵
      1. Thomas E,
      2. Feld JJ,
      3. Li Q,
      4. et al
      . Ribavirin potentiates interferon action by augmenting interferon-stimulated gene induction in hepatitis C virus cell culture models. Hepatology 2011;53:32–41.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    9. ↵
      1. Feld JJ,
      2. Nanda S,
      3. Huang Y,
      4. et al
      . Hepatic gene expression during treatment with peginterferon and ribavirin: Identifying molecular pathways for treatment response. Hepatology 2007;46:1548–63.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    10. ↵
      1. Geiss GK,
      2. Bumgarner RE,
      3. Birditt B,
      4. et al
      . Direct multiplexed measurement of gene expression with color-coded probe pairs. Nat Biotechnol 2008;26:317–25.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    11. ↵
      1. Benjamini Y,
      2. Hochberg Y
      . Controlling the false discovery rate—a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J Roy Stat Soc B Met 1995;57:289–300.
      OpenUrl
    12. ↵
      1. Chen L,
      2. Borozan I,
      3. Feld J,
      4. et al
      . Hepatic gene expression discriminates responders and nonresponders in treatment of chronic hepatitis C viral infection. Gastroenterology 2005;128:1437–44.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    13. ↵
      1. Fellay J,
      2. Thompson AJ,
      3. Ge D,
      4. et al
      . ITPA gene variants protect against anaemia in patients treated for chronic hepatitis C. Nature 2010;464:405–8.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    14. ↵
      1. Zeuzem S,
      2. Buggisch P,
      3. Agarwal K,
      4. et al
      . The protease inhibitor GS-9256 and non-nucleoside polymerase inhibitor tegobuvir alone, with RBV or peginterferon plus RBV in hepatitis C. Hepatology 2012;55:74958.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    15. ↵
      1. McHutchison JG,
      2. Manns MP,
      3. Muir AJ,
      4. et al
      . Telaprevir for previously treated chronic HCV infection. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1292–303.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    16. ↵
      1. Pawlotsky JM,
      2. Dahari H,
      3. Neumann AU,
      4. et al
      . Antiviral action of ribavirin in chronic hepatitis C. Gastroenterology 2004;126:703–14.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    17. ↵
      1. Bodenheimer HC Jr.,
      2. Lindsay KL,
      3. Davis GL,
      4. et al
      . Tolerance and efficacy of oral ribavirin treatment of chronic hepatitis C: a multicenter trial. Hepatology 1997;26:473–7.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    18. ↵
      1. Hoofnagle JH,
      2. Ghany MG,
      3. Kleiner DE,
      4. et al
      . Maintenance therapy with ribavirin in patients with chronic hepatitis C who fail to respond to combination therapy with interferon alfa and ribavirin. Hepatology 2003;38:66–74.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    19. ↵
      1. Dahari H,
      2. Markatou M,
      3. Zeremski M,
      4. et al
      . Early ribavirin pharmacokinetics, HCV RNA and alanine aminotransferase kinetics in HIV/HCV co-infected patients during treatment with pegylated interferon and ribavirin. J Hepatol 2007;47:23–30.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    20. ↵
      1. Sulkowski MS,
      2. Shiffman ML,
      3. Afdhal NH,
      4. et al
      . Hepatitis C virus treatment-related anemia is associated with higher sustained virologic response rate. Gastroenterology 2010;139:1602–11, 11 e1.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    21. ↵
      1. Yang J,
      2. Huang J,
      3. Dasgupta M,
      4. et al
      . Reversible methylation of promoter-bound STAT3 by histone-modifying enzymes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2010;107:21499–504.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    22. ↵
      1. Sarasin-Filipowicz M,
      2. Wang X,
      3. Yan M,
      4. et al
      . Alpha interferon induces long-lasting refractoriness of JAK-STAT signaling in the mouse liver through induction of USP18/UBP43. Mol Cell Biol 2009;29:4841–51.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    23. ↵
      1. Slavenburg S,
      2. Huntjens-Fleuren HW,
      3. Dofferhoff TS,
      4. et al
      . Ribavirin plasma concentration measurements in patients with hepatitis C: early ribavirin concentrations predict steady-state concentrations. Ther Drug Monit 2011;33:40–4.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    24. ↵
      1. Lanford RE,
      2. Guerra B,
      3. Lee H,
      4. et al
      . Genomic response to interferon-alpha in chimpanzees: implications of rapid downregulation for hepatitis C kinetics. Hepatology 2006;43:961–72.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    25. ↵
      1. Ji X,
      2. Cheung R,
      3. Cooper S,
      4. et al
      . Interferon alfa regulated gene expression in patients initiating interferon treatment for chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 2003;37:610–21.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    26. ↵
      1. Taylor MW,
      2. Tsukahara T,
      3. Brodsky L,
      4. et al
      . Changes in gene expression during pegylated interferon and ribavirin therapy of chronic hepatitis C virus distinguish responders from nonresponders to antiviral therapy. J Virol 2007;81:3391–401.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    27. ↵
      1. Brillanti S,
      2. Buonfiglioli F,
      3. Feletti V,
      4. et al
      . Ribavirin priming enhances efficacy of chronic hepatitis C re-treatment in patients who had not responded to previous combination therapy. Hepatology 2009;50:317A.
      OpenUrl

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

      Files in this Data Supplement:

    Footnotes

    • Contributors YR, JJF, TH, MGG, ED, ET, BR, JHH, TJL: study concept and design. YR, MN, JJF, MW, HH, YJP, SHP, CK, AA, NG, SS, ET, GA, BE, RT, LH: acquisition of data. YR, MN, JG, HD, ASP, JHH, TJL: analysis and interpretation of data. YR, JG, HD: statistical analysis. YR, TJL: drafting of the manuscript. All authors: critical review of the manuscript. YR: guarantor.

    • Funding The study was supported by the intramural research program of NIDDK; NIH grants R01-OD011095, R37-AI028433, R01-AI078881, R34-HL109334 and P20-GM103452; and the University of Illinois Walter Payton Liver Center GUILD.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Ethics approval NIDDK/NIAMS IRB.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data sharing statement Microarray data is deposited in the GEO database (accession GSE38663). Requests for additional data should be directed to YR. Partial results from this work were presented at the AASLD Liver meetings in 2009, 2010 and 2011.

    Linked Articles