Thursday, June 28, 2012

EASL-AASLD Special Conference on Therapy of Hepatitis C

European Association for the Study of the Liver

EASL-AASLD Special Conference on Therapy of Hepatitis C
Clinical application and drug development


The European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL), together with the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), will be holding an exciting "Special Conference" dedicated to the timely topic of:

Therapy of Hepatitis C: Clinical Application and Drug Development
During the three days of the conference – held from 14-16 September 2012 in Prague, Czech Republic - leading international Hepatitis C experts will highlight and address a series of lectures, and participate in interactive debates on hop topics in Hepatitis C. Case presentations and parallel interactive sessions will take place and space will be reserved for poster presentations of original works in the field.

The EASL-AASLD Special Conference provides an opportunity to keep abreast of the latest developments in this rapidly advancing field. The programme has been designed to provide adequate time for discussion and networking and will address a variety of areas including:

  • Global scale intervention and control of HCV
  • Prospects for a preventive HCV vaccine
  • Review of new drug treatments in development such as Nonnucleoside inhibitors of HCV RNA polymerase, NS5A inhibitors, and Cyclophylin inhibitors
  • Effectiveness of triple combinations in cirrhotics

Prof. Dr. Heiner Wedemeyer, a former EASL Secretary General and one of the Special Conference organisers, said a major discussion point at the conference will deal with the real-world use of new direct-acting antivirals (DAAs):

"We will discuss how to manage the side-effects of DDAs in real-world settings, and also their efficacy in populations not treated in pivotal registration trials. This is extremely important for physicians who are starting to use the drugs, particularly in terms of which patients should now be treated," said Prof. Dr. Heiner Wedemeyer.

Moreover, Prof. Dr. Wedemeyer said perspectives on Interferon (IFN) free treatment regimens will be extremely exciting: "After more than 25 years, we can now develop therapies that will not require IFN-alpha, which causes many side-effects and is also very expensive. We are experiencing a paradigm shift in the therapy of hepatitis C. This conference will also be very important for the development of new guidelines in Europe!"

FDA Hepatitis Update - Incivek (telaprevir) product labeling revised

FDA Hepatitis Update - Incivek (telaprevir) product labeling revised

You are receiving this message as a subscriber to the FDA hepatitis electronic list serve. The purpose of the list serve is to relay important information about viral hepatitis-related products and issues, including product approvals, significant labeling changes, safety warnings, notices of upcoming public meetings and alerts to proposed regulatory guidances for comment.
Please do not reply to this message.


The Incivek (telaprevir) product labeling was recently revised to include the following changes:
1. Update the clinical comment for neuroleptic drug pimozide in Section 4 Contraindications to state: "Potential for serious and/or life-threatening adverse reactions such as cardiac arrhythmias"
2. Update Section 5 Warnings and Precautions subsection 5.4 Anemia to state: "Hemoglobin should be monitored prior to and at least at weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12 during INCIVEK combination treatment and as clinically appropriate."
3. Update Section 5 Warnings and Precautions subsection 5.6 Laboratory Tests to state the following: Use of a sensitive real-time RT-PCR assay for monitoring HCV-RNA levels during treatment is recommended. The assay should have a lower limit of HCV-RNA quantification equal to or less than 25 IU per mL and a limit of HCV-RNA detection of approximately 10-15 IU per mL.
4. Update Section 7 Drug Interactions to remove desipramine from Table 5: Established and Other Potentially Significant Interactions. Also added to Section 7 was a statement that no dose adjustment is needed for Incivek when given with either raltegravir or buprenorphine. The corresponding results from the drug-drug interaction trial with raltegravir and buprenorphine are included in Section 12 Pharmacokinetics.
5. Update Section 14 Clinical Studies to include revisions to the definition of sustained virologic response (SVR) and to correct the SVR rates for African American and Cirrhotic subpopulations as follows:
.
SVR was defined as HCV RNA less than 25 IU per mL at last observation within the SVR visit window (i.e., weeks 32-78 for patients assigned to 24 weeks of treatment and weeks 56-78 for patients assigned to 48 weeks of treatment).

Trial 108 (ADVANCE)
  • Twenty-six subjects were Black/African Americans. The overall SVR among Black/African American subjects was 62% (16/26). Among these subjects, 35% (9/26) were assigned to 24 weeks of treatment and of those 89% (8/9)achieved SVR.
  • Twenty-one subjects had cirrhosis at baseline and the overall SVR in these subjects was 71% (15/21). Among subjects with cirrhosis, 43% (9/21)were assigned to 24 weeks of treatment and of those 78% (7/9)achieved SVR.
Trial 111 (ILLUMINATE)
  • Sixty-one (11%) of subjects had cirrhosis at baseline. Among subjects with cirrhosis, 30 (49%) achieved an eRVR: 18 were randomized to T12/PR24 and 12 to T12/PR48. The SVR rates were 61% (11/18) for the T12/PR24 group and 92% (11/12) for the T12/PR48 group.
  • Blacks/African Americans comprised 14% (73/540) of trial subjects. Thirty-four (47%) Black/African American subjects achieved an eRVR and were randomized to T12/PR24 or T12/PR48. The respective SVR rates were 88% (15/17) and 88% (15/17), compared to 92% (244/266) for Caucasians among randomized subjects.
Trial C216
  • Twenty-six percent (139/530) of INCIVEK-treated subjects had cirrhosis at baseline. SVR rates among cirrhotic subjects who received INCIVEK combination treatment compared to Pbo/PR48 were: 84% (48/57) compared to 7% (1/15) for prior relapsers, 34% (11/32) compared to 20% (1/5) for prior partial responders, and 14% (7/50) compared to 10% (1/10) for prior null responders.
  • Four percent (19/530) of treatment experienced subjects who received INCIVEK combination treatment were Black/African Americans; the SVR rate for these subjects was 63% (12/19) compared to 66% (328/498) for Caucasians.
The complete revised label can be viewed on the FDA web site at Drugs@FDA.
Richard Klein
Office of Special Health Issues
Food and Drug Administration
Kimberly Struble
Division of Antiviral Drug Products

Food and Drug Administration

If you are interested in receiving information about a broader range of FDA topics, consider subscribing to the FDA Patient Network News, a twice monthly newsletter containing FDA-related information on a variety of topics, including new product approvals, significant labeling changes, safety warnings, notices of upcoming public meetings, proposed regulatory guidances and opportunity to comment, and other information of interest to patients and patient advocates.

.

This email was sent to kostikblog@ukr.net using GovDelivery, on behalf of: U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) · 10903 New Hampshire Ave · Silver Spring, MD 20993 · 800-439-1420 Powered by GovDelivery

Related-
Boceprevir Label Revised: Do Not Coadminister With Ritonavir-Boosted HIV Protease Inhibitors
The label for the hepatitis C virus (HCV) protease inhibitor (PI) boceprevir (Victrelis, Merck & Co., Inc.) has been revised to state that coadministration of the drug with certain ritonavir-boosted HIV PIs is not recommended, the FDA announced on April 26.........

What the health care ruling means to you

What the health care ruling means to you
By Josh Levs, CNN
updated 11:06 AM EDT, Thu June 28, 2012
CNN -- The Supreme Court's decision Thursday to uphold the Affordable Care Act means that the predictions about how it will affect all Americans remain in place.


STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • The Supreme Court's decision upholds the health care law
  • The requirement to have health insurance by 2014 remains in place
  • Insurance companies must cover people with pre-existing conditions
  • Small business owners and medical groups disagree over the impacts of the law

Here are some highlights:

The uninsured
The decision leaves in place the so-called individual mandate -- the requirement on Americans to have or buy health insurance beginning in 2014 or face a penalty -- although many are exempt from that provision.

In 2014, the penalty will be $285 per family or 1% of income, whichever is greater. By 2016, it goes up to $2,085 per family or 2.5% of income.Health care exchanges, which are designed to offer cheaper health care plans, remain in place as well.

The insured
Because the requirement remains for people to have or buy insurance, the revenue stream designed to help pay for the law remains in place. So insured Americans may be avoiding a spike in premiums that could have resulted if the high court had tossed out the individual mandate but left other requirements on insurers in place.

Young adults
Millions of young adults up to age 26 who have gained health insurance due to the law will be able to keep it. The law requires insurers to cover the children of those they insure up to age 26. About 2.5 million young adults from age 19 to 25 obtained health coverage as a result of the Affordable Care Act, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Two of the nation's largest insurers, United Healthcare and Humana, recently announced they would voluntarily maintain some aspects of health care reform, including coverage of adult dependents up to age 26, even if the law was scrapped.

People with pre-existing conditions
Since the law remains in place, the requirement that insurers cover people with pre-existing medical conditions remains active.

The law also established that children under the age of 19 could no longer have limited benefits or be denied benefits because they had a pre-existing condition.
Starting in 2014, the law makes it illegal for any health insurance plan to use pre-existing conditions to exclude, limit or set unrealistic rates on coverage.

It also established national high-risk pools that people with such conditions could join sooner to get health insurance. As of April, a total of only about 67,000 people were enrolled in federally-funded pools established by the health care law, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
More than 13 million American non-elderly adults have been denied insurance specifically because of their medical conditions, according to the Commonwealth Fund. The Kaiser Family Foundation says 21% of people who apply for health insurance on their own get turned down, are charged a higher price, or offered a plan that excludes coverage for their pre-existing condition.

All taxpayers
No matter what the Supreme Court had decided, it would have been a mixed bag for all Americans when it comes to federal spending. There is heated dispute over what impact the health care law will have on the country over the long term.
The federal government is set to spend more than $1 trillion over the next decade to subsidize coverage and expand eligibility for Medicaid. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the law could reduce deficits modestly in the first 10 years and then much more significantly in the second decade.

The CBO said a repeal of the mandate could reduce deficits by $282 billion over 10 years, because the government would be subsidizing insurance for fewer people. But the nation faces costs in various ways for having people who are uninsured. The Urban Institute's Health Policy Center estimated that without a mandate, 40 million Americans would remain uninsured.
Meanwhile, the Flexible Spending Accounts that millions of Americans use to save money tax-free for medical expenses will be sliced under the law. FSAs often allow people to put aside up to $5,000 pre-tax; as of 2013, they were to face an annual limit of $2,500.

Small business owners
The rules and benefits small business owners face as a result of the health care law remain in place.
As CNN has chronicled, the law brought a mix of both. The director of the National Federation of Independent Business is one of the plaintiffs who pushed the court to strike down the law. Meanwhile, a group called Small Business Majority fought to protect the law, saying its loss could be a nightmare.
As of 2014, under the law, small firms with more than 50 full-time employees would have to provide coverage or face expensive fines.

All Americans, in lesser known ways
The massive health care law requires doctors to report goodies they get from medical supply companies; demands more breastfeeding rooms; requires all chain restaurants to list calories under every menu item, and includes numerous other provisions, which now remain in place.

Doctors and other health care providers
Health care providers have already begun making changes based on the 2010 law, and in preparation for what will go into effect in 2014. Those plans continue.
In the short term, doctors avoid "chaos" that may have resulted from the law suddenly being dropped or changed, according to Bob Doherty, senior vice president of governmental affairs at the American College of Physicians, who wrote a blog post on the website kevinmd.com this spring.
Medical groups have disagreed over the law.



Impact of ribavirin dose on retreatment of chronic hepatitis C patients

World J Gastroenterol. 2012 Jun 21;18(23):2966-72.

Impact of ribavirin dose on retreatment of chronic hepatitis C patients.

Stern C, Martinot-Peignoux M, Ripault MP, Boyer N, Castelnau C, Valla D, Marcellin P.

Source
Christiane Stern, Michelle Martinot-Peignoux, Marie Pierre Ripault, Nathalie Boyer, Corinne Castelnau, Dominique Valla, Patrick Marcellin, Service d'Hépatologie and INSERM U773-CRB3, Hôpital Beaujon, University Paris-Diderot, 92110 Clichy, France.

Discussion and abstract below, click here to download full text

Abstract
AIM:
To study the efficacy and factors associated with a sustained virological response (SVR) in chronic hepatitis C (CHC) relapsing patients.

METHODS:
Out of 1228 CHC patients treated with pegylated interferon (PEG-IFN) and ribavirin (RBV), 165 (13%) had a relapse. Among these, 62 patients were retreated with PEG-IFN-α2a or -α2b and RBV. Clinical, biological, virological and histological data were collected. Initial doses and treatment modifications were recorded. The efficacy of retreatment and predictive factors for SVR were analyzed.

RESULTS:
An SVR was achieved in 42% of patients. SVR was higher in young (< 50 years) (61%) than old patients (27%) (P = 0.007), and in genotype 2 or 3 (57%) than in genotype 1 or 4 (28%) patients (P = 0.023). Prolonging therapy for at least 24 wk more than the previous course was associated with higher SVR rates (53% vs 28%, P = 0.04). Also, a better SVR rate was observed with RBV dose/body weight > 15.2 mg/kg per day (70% vs 35%, P = 0.04). In logistic regression, predictors of a response were age (P = 0.018), genotype (P = 0.048) and initial RBV dose/body weight (P = 0.022). None of the patients without a complete early virological response achieved an SVR (negative predictive value = 100%).

CONCLUSION:
Retreatment with PEG-IFN/RBV is eff-ective in genotype 2 or 3 relapsers, especially in young patients. A high dose of RBV seems to be important for the retreatment response

DISCUSSION Only
Download Full Text
Retreatment of CHC patients who have failed prior antiviral therapy is an important clinical issue. Our study evaluated the efficacy of retreatment of CHC patients who relapsed after combination therapy with PEG-IFN plus RBV. The overall SVR rate achieved was 42%. An important point of our study is the inclusion of a homogeneous population of prior relapsers to the PEGIFN-α plus RBV combination therapy. Most previous studies analyzed the efficacy of retreatment with PEG IFN plus RBV based on groups composed mainly of patients who failed conventional IFN-based therapy without distinguishing between non-responders and relapsers,or between monotherapy and combination therapy.

Jacobson et al[21] demonstrated that SVR rates decreased according to previous conventional IFN-based therapy status: 42% in conventional IFN (cIFN) plus RBV relapsers,21% in cIFN monotherapy non-responders, and 8% in cIFN plus RBV non-responders. These data were also confirmed by several other studies: retreatment of previous relapsers to cIFN plus RBV could achieve SVR rates of 41%-58%, while for patients who were non-responders, only 4%-26% achieved an SVR [17-21]. The same relationship was observed in previous failures to PEGIFN and RBV: 33% in prior relapsers and 14% in prior non-responders, with an overall SVR of 22% [23].


The SVR rate of 42% observed in our study was slightly higher than that described in the EPIC3 clinical trial, where prior PEG-IFN plus RBV relapsers attained an SVR of 33% [23]. In our study, HCV genotype was an important predictor for SVR. Patients infected with genotype 2 or 3 attained the highest rates of SVR (60% in genotype 2 and 56% in genotype 3). Thus, a higher proportion of genotype non-1 infected patients in the current study (52% vs 20% in EPIC3 trial) could account for this difference. In addition, the EPIC trial used less sensitive qualitative assays that could result in misclas sification of EOT responders, increasing the number of relapsers that were in fact non-responders, with a lower probability of SVR.

Young age and genotype 2 or 3 were factors associated with treatment response as previously reported [2,13,15].

We did not find a relationship between low baseline viral load or low fibrosis stage and better response to therapy. These factors have been described in controversial studies with the treatment of naïve and IFN-experienced patients, and their impact on the response in relapsers could have less strength [7,13,19,23,24].

Retreatment with only PEG-IFN-α in patients who failed to respond to the other PEG-IFN-α has been described as an alternative strategy. However, in our study no gain was observed in patients who received a different type of PEG-IFN-α. This finding is consistent with the REPEAT trial, where prior non-responders to PEG-IFN-α2b were retreated with PEG-IFN-α2a.

Only 9% of SVR was observed in the regimen of 48 wk retreatment [25]. Besides, this trial demonstrated higher SVR rates in the group retreated for 72 wk (14%) [26]. In the current study, the SVR rate was also improved with longer duration of therapy. Thus, retreatment for at least 24 wk longer than the previous course is important to increase the probability of SVR in relapsers and nonresponders.

Some controversial studies have suggested that exposure to RBV is critical for attaining an SVR. At first,adherence to therapy was considered extremely important. McHutchison et al[8] demonstrated that at least 80% adherence to therapy enhanced SVR. They found a continuous, increasing relationship between adherence and SVR in genotype 1. These findings were also observed in another study with genotype 1-naïve patients, where a linear relationship between exposure and the SVR rate was observed at the first 12 wk of treatment 7]. Also, a study with RBV discontinuation in a subset of HCV RNA-negative patients at week 24 showed an increase in the rate of virological breakthrough and relapse [9].

In contrast, in our study no relation was found between dose reduction of RBV and SVR. However, the rate of RBV reduction was 20% and only 2 patients did not have at least 80% of the predicted RBV doses.  Recent studies suggested that high-dose RBV schedules reduced relapse rates and increased SVR in difficult to-treat selected patients [10-12]. In a pilot study with 10 genotype 1 patients, higher RBV doses were associated with more frequent and serious adverse events, but the SVR rate was 90% [11]. Also, Fried et al[10] reported a study with 188 treatment-naïve, genotype 1 and high viral load patients. Patients who received an RBV dose of 1600 mg/d had superior SVR rates when compared with standard doses (1200 mg/d). Our data demonstrated a clear relation between high initial dose of RBV [22] and SVR rates. Patients with RBV dose >15.2 mg/kg per day achieved an SVR rate of 70%, while only 26% of patients with lower doses attained an SVR.

Our study demonstrates that an RVR in a relapser retreatment population is attained by 18%, of whom 71% achieved an SVR. Prediction of non response on treatment was more marked with EVR analyses. If the patient did not achieve a cEVR, no SVR was observed (NPV = 100%). Hence, the presence of detectable HCV RNA at week 12 is a good indication to stop treatment in relapsers and it is as relevant as for naïve or nonresponding patients[3,19,25].

Specifically targeted antiviral therapies for hepatitis C are currently under evaluation in clinical trials. These new drugs are mostly effective and have been studied in genotype 1 patients [27-29].

Telaprevir, an antiprotease NS3-NS4A, increases SVR rates in genotype 1 naïve and non-responding patients, but it has limited activity against genotype 2 and 3 [30]. Besides, even when these medications will be available outside trials, they will not be accessible worldwide. For these reasons, PEG-IFN and RBV still have a role on hepatitis C retreatment, in particular in young patients infected with non genotype 1.

In conclusion, our study shows that retreatment of prior relapsers after treatment with a combination of PEG-IFN plus RBV may be effective. As observed with naïve patients, genotype is crucial for a treatment response. Better results of retreatment are obtained in patients with genotype 2 or 3 and of younger age. In addition, in this subset of patients, higher SVR rates are achieved with increased doses of RBV, without a marked increase in adverse events or dose reductions.

Thus, a high dose schedule of RBV is recommended if retreatment is proposed. Also, prolonging therapy for at least 24 wk more than the previous course enhances SVR rates. Finally, the absence of a cEVR as defined by detectable HCV RNA at week 12 should be considered a stopping rule in the retreatment of relapsers.

COMMENTS

Background
Only 50% of chronic hepatitis C (CHC) patients treated with the combination of pegylated interferon (PEG-IFN)-α and ribavirin (RBV), the standard treatment,will achieve a sustained virological response (SVR). Therefore, patients with no response or relapse after PEG-IFN and RBV treatment are a major issue.  Approximately 30% of CHC patients with undetectable hepatitis C virus (HCV)
RNA at end of therapy (EOT) will experience relapse.

Research frontiers
Retreatment of CHC patients with relapse to antiviral therapy is a current clinical issue. There are no specific recommendations about type, dose and duration of retreatment in this particular situation. In this research area, different dose schedules and duration of PEG-IFN and RBV therapy have been evaluated in order to increase the SVR in patients with a previous relapse to this antiviral therapy.

Innovations and breakthroughs
This study shows in a real life cohort that retreatment of relapsers after prior treatment with a combination of PEG-IFN plus RBV may be effective. Better results of retreatment are obtained in patients with genotype 2 or 3 and of younger age as is observed in naïve patients. Moreover, in this subset of patients,higher SVR rates are achieved with increased doses of RBV (> 15.2 mg/kg per day), without a marked increase in adverse events or dose reductions. Also, lengthening therapy for at least 24 wk more than the previous course enhances SVR rates.

Applications
The study suggests that retreatment of patients with a relapse after treatment with PEG-IFN and RBV may be effective, especially in patients with genotype 2 or 3 who are of younger age. In order to increase SVR in this particular situation,high dose RBV and longer duration of therapy should be proposed.

Terminology
In CHC patients, treatment responses to the combination of PEG-IFN and RBV are defined by a virological parameter (HCV RNA analysis) rather than a clinical endpoint. The most important definitions are: SVR if HCV RNA remains undetectable 24 wk after EOT, non response if HCV RNA is positive at EOT, and relapse if HCV RNA is undetectable at EOT but detectable within 24-wk followup period.

Peer review
The authors revealed that SVR was achieved in 42% of the retreated patients,and that initial dose/weight of RBV was an important predictor of SVR.

Download Full Text

Supreme Court Upholds Entire Affordable Care Act

From Medscape Medical News
Supreme Court Upholds Entire Affordable Care Act
Robert Lowes
Posted: 06/28/2012

June 28, 2012 — The Supreme Court today declared in a 5-4 vote that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) — the most significant healthcare legislation since the creation of Medicare — is also a constitutional act.
The ruling comes as a shock to many observers, who predicted the court would strike down the individual mandate to obtain insurance coverage, if not the entire law, after its 5-member conservative wing voiced misgivings about the controversial provision during oral arguments in March. The court decision also represents an early Christmas present for President Barack Obama, who seeks reelection this fall against a Republican opponent committed to rolling back "Obamacare."

The individual mandate was at the core of a lawsuit filed against the ACA by officials from 26 states, all but 1 of whom were Republican, as well as a business association. Similar to their Republican allies in Congress, the plaintiffs claimed that the mandate violated the Constitution's Commerce clause, which empowers Congress to regulate interstate commerce. They argued that although healthcare is a form of interstate commerce, Congress cannot compel "inactive" individuals to engage in commerce; that is, to buy or sell something. To allow the mandate to stand, they said, would open the door to further encroachments on personal liberty.

A federal district court in Florida and a federal appeals court in Georgia sided with the plaintiffs and invalidated the individual mandate. However, the Supreme Court had other precedents to follow.
The majority of lower federal courts that ruled on similar challenges to the ACA gave the mandate a clean bill of health, agreeing with the Obama administration's argument that contrary to the law's critics, individuals foregoing insurance coverage actively participate in the healthcare marketplace because they will eventually require medical attention. Their decision not to get coverage is bad for everyone else because the cost of their free or subsidized care is passed on to others in the form of higher provider costs and higher premiums, according to the administration. In addition, the decision by healthy Americans to go uninsured leaves the existing risk pool of insured Americans smaller and sicker, driving up premiums even more.

The mandate helps cure all these problems, the administration contended, by forcing "free riders" to finance their healthcare now as opposed to later, if at all.
During the oral arguments in March, several conservative Supreme Court justices did not appear to buy into the administration's point of view.

"Here the government is saying that the federal government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act," said Justice Anthony Kennedy, "and that is different from what we have in previous cases, and that changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way."

The court's ruling on the ACA addressed more than the mandate. The justices also upheld the constitutionality of the law's dramatic expansion of the Medicaid program, which the plaintiffs had portrayed as a usurpation of states' rights. The court also declared that a penalty levied on individuals who fail to obtain health insurance coverage beginning in 2014 does not bar consideration of the case beforehand. At issue was a law called the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA), which prohibits anyone from challenging a tax in court until it has been paid. A federal district judge in Richmond, Virginia, last year ruled that the ACA penalty amounted to a tax, and thus triggered the AIA.


http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/765416?sssdmh=dm1.797961

Viral Hepatitis in the Elderly

From The American Journal of Gastroenterology
Viral Hepatitis in the Elderly

Andres F Carrion MD; Paul Martin MD; FACG

Posted: 06/28/2012; The American Journal of Gastroenterology. 2012;107(5):691-697. © 2012 Nature Publishing Group

Abstract and Introduction
Abstract

As life expectancy continues to rise, elderly adults represent a rapidly growing proportion of the population. The likelihood of complications of acute and chronic liver disease and overall mortality are higher in elderly populations. Several physiological changes associated with aging, greater prevalence of co-morbid conditions, and cumulative exposure to hepatotropic viruses and environmental hepatotoxins may contribute to worse outcomes of viral hepatitis in the elderly. Although pharmacotherapy for hepatitis B and C continues to evolve, the efficacy, tolerability, and side effects of these agents have not been studied extensively in elderly adults. Immunization against hepatitis A and B in naïve elderly adults is an important public health intervention that needs to be revised and broadened.

Introduction
Viral hepatitis has some unique clinical characteristics in older individuals who comprise an increasingly large segment of the US population. According to data from the US Census Bureau 12.7% of the US population is older than 65 years of age. The "Baby Boom" generation refers to individuals born between 1946 and 1964 and is the largest birth cohort in the US history, reflecting a marked increase in births following World War II. As the first Baby Boomers started turning 65 in 2011, the US Census Bureau projects that the elderly population will increase twofold by 2030 (72 million people) and will comprise ~20% of the US population.[1–3] There are important differences in the epidemiology, clinical presentation, and management of viral hepatitis in the elderly compared with younger individuals. For example, acute hepatitis A is more clinically severe in older individuals and, although acute hepatitis B and C are most commonly recognized in young adults with high-risk behaviors, acute infection can also occur in the elderly. With the aging of the cohort of individuals chronically infected with hepatitis C, it is anticipated that there will be an increasing burden of decompensated cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) for the next two decades.[4] It is also well established that elderly individuals with viral hepatitis have higher mortality rates than younger patients, reflecting in part a higher prevalence of co-morbid conditions.[5] Furthermore, physiological changes associated with aging, such as diminished immune response ("immune senescence"), metabolic derangements, nutritional deficiencies, and greater cumulative exposure to environmental hepatotoxins may also contribute to worse outcomes of viral hepatitis in the elderly.[6] Among the multiple age-related changes of the liver, significant reductions of up to 30–40% in parenchymal volume, liver blood flow, and perfusion have been noted.[7] Although there are no age-specific alternations in serum bilirubin levels, aminotransferases, and fractionated alkaline phosphatase levels, the hepatic metabolism of multiple substances (i.e., hepatic nitrogen clearance and aminopyridine demethylation) may be significantly impaired (up to 50%) with advanced age.[8] The age-related decline of liver regeneration has been described in animal models in which the mitogenic capacity of hepatocytes is reduced with aging (up to 70% lower than in younger animals).[9] This finding has also been recently corroborated in humans with significant reductions in liver regeneration noted in individuals older than 50 years compared with younger adults undergoing living donor liver transplantation.[10]

Hepatitis A
The age-specific incidence of hepatitis A virus (HAV) infection in children and adults in the United States declined rapidly following implementation of vaccination of children and individuals at risk.[11] Data from 2009 published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrate a low incidence of acute HAV infection of 0.6 per 100,000 people.[12] The seroprevalence of anti-HAV immunoglobulin (Ig) G, a marker of prior infection with HAV, increases proportionally with age reflecting a cumulative risk of HAV infection throughout life. Data from the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) indicate that 31% of the overall US population had serological evidence of prior HAV infection (data collected before implementation of HAV vaccination): 9% of children aged 6–11 years, 19% of young adults aged 20–29 years, 33% of middle age adults aged 40–49 years, and 75% of those older than 70 years of age.[13]
Recovery from acute HAV infection is usually uneventful, especially in children and younger adults in whom the infection is often subclinical.[14] However, elderly individuals with acute HAV are likely to have more profound hepatocellular dysfunction with frequent jaundice and coagulopathy, as well as a higher incidence of complications such as prolonged cholestasis, pancreatitis, and ascites.[15,16] Multiple factors have been implicated in the greater severity of HAV infection in the elderly. Of these putative factors, an attenuated immune response due to age-related qualitative impairment of cell-mediated immune function has been postulated to be the most significant.[15] The more severe clinical course of HAV in the elderly is reflected in higher hospitalization rates and mortality. For example, during an outbreak of HAV infection in Memphis, TN, USA (1994–1995) 42% of individuals aged 70 years or older required hospitalization compared with 3–20% of adults aged 40–49 years.[17] Epidemiological data from the United Kingdom reveals mortality rates from HAV infection in individuals older than 75 years as high as 15%, which markedly contrasts with the very low mortality in adults aged 25–35 years (0.03–0.06%).[18] Case fatality rates due to HAV infection in the United States between 1983 and 1987 were lower than in the United Kingdom; however, age-related differences in outcomes were similar with 0.004% deaths in the 5–14 years of age group, and 2.7% in adults older than 49 years.[15,19] More recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2004–2007) show a downward trend in mortality from hepatitis A as the cause of death in all age groups. Importantly, the largest reduction in mortality associated with acute HAV infection (~50%) between 2004 and 2007 was observed in elderly adults aged ≥75 years. These data also confirm that mortality due to HAV increases with age with no fatalities reported in individuals younger than 34 years of age, 0.05 per 100,000 adults aged between 45–54 years, and 0.11 per 100,000 adults ≥75 years of age.[20] Higher mortality in elderly individuals was also noted during a HAV outbreak in Dallas County, TX, USA in 1999. Of the 232 reported cases of HAV, 25% occurred in individuals older than 60 years of age and the only two fatalities reported were in individuals older than 70 years.[15] Overall, the basis for worse outcomes in the elderly is thought to be multifactorial and influenced by higher prevalence of co-morbid conditions, decline in immune function, and reduced regenerative capacity of the liver with advanced age.[21] There are no specific data about age-related differences of the antibody-mediated response against HAV in the elderly; however, evidence suggests that older individuals have decreased antibody affinity against antigens in general.[22]

Although no formal recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for HAV vaccination in elderly adults have been issued, individuals without serological evidence of immunity to HAV should be considered candidates for immunization.[8] Data from the NHANES III indicate that the seroprevalence of anti-HAV IgG is >33% in adults older than 40 years of age in the United States; therefore, prevaccination screening for serological evidence of HAV immunity may be a cost-effective strategy.[13,23] In general, seroprotection from HAV vaccine is inversely related to age at the time of immunization. For example, 100% seroprotection has been reported in adults aged 18–45 years vs. 93% in adults older than 60 years of age based on the development of anti-HAV IgG antibodies following two doses of HAV vaccine.[21] In developed countries, HAV infection in adults has become less common; however, international travel, particularly to developing countries, remains a significant risk for acquisition. The median age of travelers from areas of low endemicity to areas of high endemicity is >40 years of age.[24] In addition, outbreaks of HAV infection continue to occur within the United States, most typically traced to an infected food handler or contaminated fruits or vegetables.[25,26] Thus, even in the absence of formal recommendations, there are cogent reasons to advise vaccination in HAV-naïve adults.

Hepatitis B
The NHANES III indicated that the prevalence of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, defined in that cohort as detectable total anti-hepatitis B-core antibody and hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), is 0.42% in the United States. Adults older than 50 years of age have on average a 1.5 to twofold higher prevalence of this infection across different ethnic groups compared with younger individuals.[27] The NHANES (1999–2006) showed an overall seroprevalence of past/present HBV infection in the United States of 4.7% (defined as positive total anti-hepatitis B-core). These data also show marked variations of the seroprevalence of the disease among different age groups with adults aged ≥50 having a 1.7 and 12.8 times higher seroprevalence of past/present infection than individuals aged 20–49 and 6–19 years, respectively. When compared with the prior NHANES survey (1988–1994), there was a significant decrease in the seroprevalence of past/present HBV infection in younger individuals but elderly adults had a non-significant increase.[28] Furthermore, there was a non-significant decrease in the seroprevalence of chronic HBV infection in all age groups when data from both surveys were compared.[28] Importantly, these surveys exclude the incarcerated, homeless, institutionalized, and recent immigrants; therefore, the seroprevalence estimates of past/present and chronic HBV infection are likely to be underestimated.[29] As expected foreign-born individuals living in the United States have a 4.4 higher prevalence of HBV infection compared with US born individuals.[27]

Clinical manifestations of acute HBV infection in the elderly may be different than in younger adults. During an outbreak of acute HBV in elderly nursing home residents, most infected individuals were asymptomatic with only a few presenting with jaundice and non-specific symptoms such as anorexia, nausea, and vomiting. No fatalities or individuals requiring hospitalization were reported during the outbreak.[30]

The natural course of chronic HBV infection is determined by multiple variables including age.[31] The risk of progression to chronic hepatitis B is inversely related to age at the time of infection. For example, progression to chronic hepatitis B has been reported in >90% of infants, 25–50% of children aged 1–5 years, and <5% of older children and young adults following an episode of acute HBV infection.[30] However, the rate of progression to chronic hepatitis B is higher in elderly individuals than in younger adults. Data from an outbreak of acute HBV infection in a nursing home in Japan showed that 59% of patients older than 65 years of age developed chronic infection.[30] The rate of spontaneous HBsAg seroclearance is also different in younger and elderly adults with chronic HBV infection. Individuals older than 60 years of age have a greater than twofold and 1.75 higher rates of cumulative HBsAg seroclearance compared with adults aged 40–49 years and 50–59 years, respectively (adjusted for several variables such as sex, baseline HBV-DNA level, baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) level, ethnicity, and body mass index). Importantly, this difference is even more pronounced when elderly and younger adults with HBV-DNA levels >10,000 copies/ml are compared.[32] Elderly individuals with acute HBV infection have similar rates of hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) positivity as younger adults (~77% for both groups) but significantly lower rates of antibodies to hepatitis e antigen (5.5% vs. 18.6%, respectively).[33] Among individuals with chronic HBV infection, the prevalence of HBeAg is inversely related to the patient's age. For example, adults older than 60 years of age have a fourfold higher prevalence of HBeAg compared with younger individuals aged 30–39 years.[34] No correlation was found between patient age and HBV precore mutant/total HBV ratio in one study including individuals aged 18–52 years.[35] With respect to HBV-DNA levels in patients naïve to treatment, age older than 40 years was associated with a 2.5 higher odds of serum HBV-DNA levels >108 copies/ml in a multicenter cross-sectional study from the United States (mainly HBV genotypes A, B, C, and a small proportion of genotypes D, E, F, and G). Patients with wild-type and variant precore/core promoter sequences were comparable in age.[36] However, data from a large Asian cohort show that adults older than 60 years of age infected with HBV genotypes B and C have lower HBV-DNA levels compared with individuals aged 30–59 years (HBeAg positive and negative). This difference persisted when only HBeAg-negative younger and elderly individuals were compared.[31] Additional data from the same Asian cohort demonstrate that progression to cirrhosis is mainly correlated with HBV-DNA levels but older age and male sex are also important risk factors.[37]

Therapeutic options for HBV have greatly expanded since the mid-1990s with the introduction of oral therapies. Clinical trials showed equivalent therapeutic efficacy of standard and pegylated interferons in the elderly compared with younger adults.[38] Lamivudine was also equally effective in individuals younger and older than 60 years of age as evidenced by response to therapy, loss of HBV-DNA, and development of viral resistance.[39] Unfortunately, the use of lamivudine is limited by the high rate of development of resistant mutants. Anti-HBV therapy with newer nucleoside or nucleotide analogs (tenofovir, entecavir, and adefovir) is associated with high rates of recurrence after treatment is stopped; therefore, most individuals require long-term therapy with these drugs.[40] Interferon-based therapy may also be effective; however, virologic relapse is more frequent in the elderly (defined as reappearance of HBV-DNA and/or HBeAg).[41]

Vaccination against HBV is recommended in elderly individuals at risk for infection, including all nursing home residents because of the higher risk of transmission of HBV in these facilities.[42] Nursing home residence is associated with an increased risk for HBV infection due to breaches in standard precautions and cross-contamination with blood and other body fluids. Therefore, HBV immunization should also be recommended for care providers at these institutions.[42] The prevalence of HBsAg has been reported to be higher in nursing home residents compared with non-institutionalized populations in the same geographic area.[42] Normal aging is associated with a decline in immune function; therefore, elderly individuals have an attenuated immune response to HBV vaccination compared with younger adults (70% vs. 98%, respectively).[43] The major factor implicated is T-cell dysfunction in elderly adults. Supporting this hypothesis, in vitro studies have demonstrated that production of antibodies against HBsAg is normal when T cells from young individuals are added to serum from older adults.[43] Furthermore, aging is also associated with a decreased number of T cells. In an attempt to overcome this disadvantage, particularly the quantitative deficiency of T cells, growth factors (i.e., granulocyte-monocyte colony stimulating factor) have been used as an adjuvant to enhance vaccine-induced seroprotection in elderly individuals.[44] However, a pilot trial evaluating this intervention did not show a clinically significant effect on immune response in healthy elderly individuals following HBV immunization.[45]

HCC is a major complication of chronic HBV infection. Older age is a predictor for development of HCC in patients with chronic hepatitis B by increasing the risk of this neoplasm by a 2.7 increment with every decade of life.[46,47] Therefore, age is a factor in determining initiation of surveillance for HCC in patients with chronic HBV infection but current guidelines only provide age-specific recommendations for HCC surveillance in hepatitis B carriers of Asian ethnicity (men >40 years of age and women >50 years of age).[48] Spontaneous annual seroclearance rates of HBsAg are higher in older adults compared with younger individuals; however, HBsAg seroclearance (either spontaneous or as a result of antiviral therapy) does not eliminate the risk of HCC.[32,49] Furthermore, recent data suggest that HBsAg seroclearance after 45–50 years of age is associated with higher incidence of HCC compared with seroclearance at a younger age. The increased incidence of HCC in patients with "late" HBsAg seroclearance may reflect the oncogenic nature of HBV.[50]

Reactivation of HBV infection with elevated HBV-DNA and ALT levels may occur in up to 50% of HBV-infected individuals following immunosuppressive chemotherapy.[48] Although the majority of cases of HBV reactivation in this setting are asymptomatic, fatal hepatic decompensation is well recognized.[51] Reactivation of HBV in patients receiving antineoplastic chemotherapy typically results in interruption of treatment with reduced antineoplastic efficacy.[52] However, data from prospective studies suggest that older adults receiving antineoplastic chemotherapy are at lower risk for HBV reactivation compared with younger individuals.[51,53] Rituximab and systemic corticosteroids, two key agents in the treatment of lymphoid neoplasms, which occur more commonly in younger adults, have been associated with a higher risk of HBV reactivation.[54,55] Current recommendations for testing for HBsAg and anti-hepatitis B-core in individuals at risk for HBV infection before initiation of immunosuppressive chemotherapy are not different for younger and elderly adults.[48] Prophylactic use of antiviral agents in HBV carriers regardless of age is indicated if immunosuppressive therapy is to be initiated: lamivudine or telbivudine if the anticipated duration of treatment is ≤12 months, and tenofovir or entecavir if longer treatment is anticipated.[48]

Hepatitis C
The incidence and prevalence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection continue to decline, particularly among younger individuals. In the United States, the prevalence of HCV infection in the general population is 1.6% but varies among different age groups with adults 40–49 years of age now having the highest seroprevalence (4.3%). Elderly individuals aged 60–69 and 70 years or older have lower prevalence rates (0.9% and 1%, respectively).[56,57] Data from a European study show that the proportion of individuals infected with HCV genotype 1 increases with age: 57% in adults aged <65 years, 72% in those 65–80 years of age, and 84% in adults older than 80 years of age.[58] Risk factors for HCV infection in older individuals include blood product transfusions before 1992, military service, injection drug use, tattoos, hemodialysis, and employment as a health care worker.[59] The true prevalence of HCV infection among elderly adults residing in nursing homes is largely unknown; however, data from a prospective cohort study including residents of three different nursing homes in St Louis, MO, USA demonstrated that the seroprevalence of anti-HCV antibodies is surprisingly high in this population (4.5%).[60] Importantly, adults older than 65 years of age more often present with complications of cirrhosis particularly hepatic failure and HCC as initial manifestations of HCV infection compared with younger individuals.[58] Older age at the time of initial infection is an important factor associated with more advanced fibrosis score, even after adjusting for sex, alcohol consumption, body mass index, HIV status, and diabetes.[58] Furthermore, progression to fibrosis may be more rapid when initial HCV infection occurs in older individuals, regardless of duration of infection.[58,61,62] For example, the median time to development of cirrhosis from infection was 33 years in individuals infected with HCV between 21 and 30 years of age compared with 16 years in individuals older than 40 years of age.[63] Elderly individuals with HCV-RNA viremia are also more likely to have normal ALT levels than younger adults (46% vs. 10.6%, respectively; Table 1).[64] Similarly, the prevalence of elevated ALT levels is comparable in individuals older and younger than 65 years of age despite an apparent greater prevalence of fibrosis in the former group as determined by serological markers of fibrosis (Fibrotest-Fibrosure and Actitest).[58] Although the use of serological markers of fibrosis in patients older than 80 years of age has not been validated, preliminary investigations suggest that the characteristics of these tests are not affected by older age. The use of these non-invasive serological tests for assessment of fibrosis may potentially be valuable in older populations particularly when ALT levels are normal, as up to one third of elderly adults may have significant fibrosis despite elevation of the ALT.[58]

The National Institute of Health consensus conference on hepatitis C identified elderly patients with chronic HCV infection as a difficult-to-treat group. Although current practice guidelines do not establish an upper age limit for antiviral therapy, elderly individuals with HCV infection are more likely to have contraindications to antiviral therapy than younger adults.[65] Typically, major clinical trials have excluded individuals older than 65 years of age and, in general, adults over the age of 60 have a higher prevalence of co-morbidities compared with younger individuals (38% vs. 18%, respectively), particularly cardiovascular, renal, pulmonary, and hematological diseases that often preclude anti-HCV therapy in this population.[66] This was demonstrated on a study of 208 Japanese patients naïve to antiviral therapy (predominantly genotype 1) who underwent treatment with interferon-α-2b and ribavirin for a total of 24 weeks. Patients were stratified by age (<50, 50–59, and >60 years). A significantly higher prevalence of systemic hypertension, impaired renal function, anemia, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia was noted at baseline in the elderly group. Discontinuation of therapy or dose reductions were twice more common in the elderly (77%) than in younger adults (38%). Importantly, patient age and systemic hypertension were found to be independently associated with adherence to therapy.[66] However, elderly individuals are less likely to have other barriers to anti-HCV therapy such as substance abuse and psychiatric disorders.[67]

Older age is an independent factor associated with a lower likelihood of being considered for antiviral therapy. For example, treatment eligibility based on accepted guidelines is lower in elderly individuals compared with younger adults (16% vs. 26%, respectively).[66] Older adults are also less likely to accept antiviral treatment and discontinuation of therapy and dose reductions are more frequently required in this age group compared with younger adults.[67] For example, data from an observational study of 220 patients treated with interferon-α-2b and ribavirin demonstrated that discontinuation rates of ribavirin were significantly more frequent in the elderly compared with younger adults. Reasons for discontinuation of therapy were similar in both age groups and consisted mainly of anemia, constitutional symptoms (fatigue and anorexia), and depression.[67] In clinical practice, <15% of adults treated with interferon and ribavirin discontinue therapy; however, discontinuation rates have been reported to be as high as 30% and dose reductions are required in >70% of individuals aged 60 years or older within the first 12 weeks of therapy.[61,66] Despite these limitations, sustained virological response rates following combination therapy with standard interferon and ribavirin are similar in individuals older than 60 years of age and those younger than 60 years of age.[66,67] Results of treatment with pegylated interferon and ribavirin in elderly individuals are scarce. A pilot study of 33 patients naïve to treatment (mean age of 70.2 years) suggested lower sustained virological response rates with a pegylated interferon-based regimen in the elderly compared with younger adults (46% vs. 69.7%).[68] The proportion of patients developing side effects that led to discontinuation of therapy was twofold higher in elderly compared with younger adults (24.2% vs. 12.2%, respectively).[68]
Current practice guidelines recommend not withholding antiviral therapy based purely on advanced age but suggested that special attention should be paid to co-morbid conditions and tolerance for potential side effects.[69,70] Adverse effects typically resolve spontaneously within 2–3 weeks of discontinuing treatment; however, depression may take longer to resolve in the elderly compared with younger adults and often requires continuing pharmacotherapy.[71] Although the recently licensed direct acting antiviral agents (boceprevir and telaprevir) significantly increase sustained virological response, there are no data assessing the efficacy and/or toxicity of these drugs in elderly populations.[72,73,74]

Hepatitis E
Hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection is endemic and epidemic in Asia, Africa, and Mexico, whereas in the United States and Western Europe only sporadic cases have been reported. The NHANES III indicated, however, that the seroprevalence of anti-HEV IgG antibodies in the US population is 21%.[75] This data concurs with a previously reported seroprevalence of anti-HEV IgG in blood donors in the United States (18.3%) implying that subclinical HEV infection is frequent in non-endemic areas.[76] Although only limited data on acute HEV infection in the elderly are available, the seroprevalence of anti-HEV IgG antibodies in Indonesia has been reported to increase with age: 38% in children 5–9 years of age, and 70% in adults older than 60 years. The high seroprevalence of anti-HEV IgG reflects cumulative risk for infection throughout life in areas of the world where the infection is endemic.[77] Similarly, the seroprevalence of anti-HEV IgG was higher among elderly vs. younger immigrants from the former Soviet Union living in Germany (7.6% vs. 1–2%, respectively).[78] Differences in the seroprevalence of anti-HEV IgG in different age groups have also been reported in the United States. For example, 16% of blood donors younger than 60 years of age had positive anti-HEV IgG compared with 25.5% in those older than 60 years.[79] Importantly, a recent study demonstrated that a small but important proportion (3%) of patients with of acute liver injury in the United States suspected to be drug-induced were also seropositive for anti-HEV IgM. After reassessment and causality analysis, HEV was considered a probable etiology of acute liver injury in these cases. The majority of patients with serology consistent with acute HEV infection (78%) were older than 60 years of age.[80]
In conclusion, exposure to HEV also occurs frequently in Western industrialized countries and until the epidemiology of this virus is better understood, HEV should be considered a potential etiology of acute hepatitis in the elderly.

Conclusions
Elderly adults represent a rapidly growing population with distinct epidemiological, pathological, and therapeutic characteristics of multiple disease processes, including viral hepatitis A, B, C, and E (Table 2). This population has a greater risk of complications of acute and chronic liver disease as well as higher risk of mortality because of high prevalence of co-morbid conditions. Therapeutic regimens for chronic hepatitis B and C have not been studied exclusively in this age group and their true effectiveness and tolerance in elderly adults warrants further research. Indications for immunization against hepatitis A and B in elderly individuals need to be revised and broadened as many of them are at increased risk for infection and, even though elderly adults have an attenuated response to immunization, this remains an effective preventive measure.

References

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/765175

Local hospitals treat the uninsured for hepatitis C

Local hospitals treat the uninsured for hepatitis C

BY AMY SKARNULIS | JUNE 28, 2012 6:30 AM

People with hepatitis C may have problems finding health insurance — because the virus is a pre-existing condition — if the U.S. Supreme Court deems the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional.

However, Iowa City hospitals offer alternative programs for uninsured people infected with the virus. Both Mercy Hospital and the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics treat people who are infected with no insurance.

Vivek Mittal, a gastroenterologist and herpetologist at Mercy Hospital, said the facility has an entire team devoted to helping people without insurance.

"I haven't had any issue with insurance so far," he said. "We have a team; there is a specialty pharmacy involved as well as the hospital team."

Bryce Smith, lead health scientist for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Division of Viral Hepatitis, told The Daily Iowan in a statement the center recommends all adults born between 1945 and 1965 to be tested once.

"[The] CDC believes that the devastating effects of hepatitis C in the U.S. demand a bold response and that a number of factors make it important to expand testing to include a targeted group of Americans now," he said.

Government health officials drafted a proposal in May, and it could see a final ruling later this year, according to an MSNBC article. .

Douglas LaBrecque, a UI professor of internal medicine and a specialist in liver disease, said that facility has a similar program. It has treated people with hepatitis C since the early 1990s, he said.

"We're a state hospital, so we get most of the patients without insurance," he said. "And we go to great lengths to get them their treatment."

LaBrecque said if people do have insurance, it may not cover their treatment if they test positive for the virus after they have a certain insurance coverage plan. If the insurance company is aware that people have hepatitis C, it will either deny the request for insurance or put them on a much more expensive plan.

"I suppose we'll know about by Friday, when the Supreme Court makes its decision on Obamacare," LaBrecque said. "[With Obama' plan], they cannot deny you because of a pre-existing condition."

LaBrecque said baby boomers are at a much higher risk of having hepatitis C because of the blood transfusions and drug use. He said people often are unaware they have the virus.

"Hepatitis C is a real stealth disease," he said. "The liver is very forgiving — it can endure quite a bit of damage before it starts to complain."

Hepatitis C is contracted through blood, but usually affects the liver. LaBrecque said it could take 20 or 30 years before patients experience any symptoms, but the liver can function adequately with only about 30 percent of it left.

"I always think of the liver as the space shuttle," he said. "They have five different computers, so if you knock out four computers, it can still fly fine because there's one working."

Mittal said approximately 3.2 million Americans are affected by hepatitis C, and three-fourths of them are baby boomers. He said before the late-1980s, health officials did not know the virus existed, so they never tested for it. It was not until 1992 that a test was available.

"If someone is tested [positive] for hepatitis C, the first thing is not to panic because there is a treatment, meaning we can cure it and not just suppress it like HIV," he said.

Mittal said new drugs have been introduced in the last year. Only 30 or 40 percent of patients diagnosed before May 2011 could be cured in about a year, but now, that rate stands at 75 percent in roughly six months.

He said a big question is who is going to test all of the baby boomers who are concerned or others who feel they may have contracted the disease. Specialists are still concerned about who should administer the test for the virus — primary physicians or specialists.

"The physicians already have everything else to do [with a regular doctor's appointment]," Mittal said.

LaBrecque said it is going to take teamwork on both the side of the specialists and the primary physicians.

"I think it's part of our job to frankly educate the physicians [about recommending patients to be tested for hepatitis C]," he said.

http://www.dailyiowan.com/2012/06/28/Metro/28856.html