Keywords
HDV - hepatitis - HBV - bulevirtide - delta
First discovered over 40 years ago, the hepatitis delta virus (HDV) is unique, requiring
the presence of the hepatitis B virus (HBV). HDV can be acquired at the same time
as HBV (coinfection) or by individuals who already have HBV (superinfection). The
number of individuals with HDV globally is uncertain; however, some estimates are
as high as 72 million individuals with HDV worldwide. HDV is the most severe form
of viral hepatitis. Compared to HBV alone, HDV increases the risk of cirrhosis, liver
cancer, mortality, and the necessity for liver transplant. Despite the severity of
HDV, there are few treatment options. This review discusses the structure, replication,
transmission, prevalence, and treatment options in the development for HDV.
The hepatitis delta virus (HDV) is an RNA virus and the smallest hepatitis virus known
to infect humans.[1]
[2]
[3] Importantly, HDV is incomplete and considered a satellite virus, which is dependent
on hepatitis B virus (HBV) envelope proteins for its assembly and on host cellular
proteins to facilitate its replication.[4]
The HDV antigen was discovered in 1977 in patients with what appeared to be a more
severe form of HBV infection.[5] Since then, studies have shown that chronic HDV infection is the most severe form
of viral hepatitis.[2] Patients with HBV/HDV have a higher risk of developing progressive fibrosis, cirrhosis,
and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) compared with patients with HBV monoinfection.[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] HDV is an important contributor to the burden of liver disease; it is estimated
to be responsible for 18% of cirrhosis and 20% of HCC among those with HBV infection.[11]
This review provides an overview of the epidemiology of and screening for HDV infection,
viral replication and natural history of infection, and diagnostic and therapeutic
options available now and in development.
Epidemiology and Screening
Epidemiology and Screening
The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates the global prevalence of HBV at 296
million, and of those, an estimated 5%, or over 14 million, are infected with HDV.[12] Published estimates of HDV global prevalence vary widely.[9]
[11]
[13] One estimate, based on a meta-analysis of 95 WHO-member countries, was approximately
0.16% (0.11–0.25) or 12 million people.[11] Another meta-analysis of published data in English and Chinese languages estimated
the global prevalence at 0.80% (95% CI, 0.63–1.00) or 48 to 60 million people.[13] A third meta-analysis, also examining data published in English and Chinese languages,
showed a prevalence of 0.98% (95% CI, 0.61–1.42) or approximately 72 million people.[9]
Interestingly, countries that are highly endemic for HBV are not necessarily highly
endemic for HDV. Greenland and the Amazon Basin have high HDV prevalence but are not
highly endemic for HBV.[13]
[14] In persons positive for HBV surface antigen (HBsAg), the global estimate of HDV
prevalence ranges from 4.5 to 14.6%.[9]
[11] A recent population-adjusted study reported HDV prevalence of 2.2% among the HBsAg-positive
population after adjusting for geographic distribution, disease stage, and special
populations.[15] HDV prevalence among individuals positive for HBsAg is highest in Mongolia, the
Republic of Moldova, and countries in Western and Central Africa.[11] Countries with the highest disease burden include China, Pakistan, and Brazil.[9]
In the United States, screening rates for HDV are low, and prevalence is likely underestimated.
A meta-analysis estimated the HDV prevalence in the United States to be 5.9% (95%
CI, 3.0–9.8), but the data were sparse.[11] In a 2015 retrospective analysis, 8.5% of U.S. military veterans with HBV were tested
for HDV; 3.4% tested positive.[16] In the 2011 to 2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, HDV prevalence
was 42% among HBsAg-positive carriers,[17] much higher than previous estimates.[18] In that survey, Asian Americans were oversampled, possibly inflating the estimate.
In the United States, HDV prevalence is higher among several subpopulations, including
people who inject drugs,[9]
[11]
[13]
[19] those infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) or HIV,[11]
[13] and those who immigrated from areas of high HDV endemicity ([Table 1]).[19]
[20]
Table 1
Areas of high HDV endemicity by estimated prevalence
|
Estimated prevalence, % (95% CI)
|
|
Chen et al[9]
|
Miao et al[13]
|
Stockdale et al[11]
|
|
Africa
|
|
Benin
|
3.74 (2.44–5.29)
|
1.77 (0.56–3.63)
|
1.7 (0.6–3.4)
|
|
Cameroon
|
|
|
1.0 (0.9–1.2)
|
|
Cote d'Ivoire
|
|
|
1.2 (0.5–2.3)
|
|
Djibouti
|
|
1.68 (0.84–2.80)
|
|
|
Gabon
|
3.03 (0.51–7.43)
|
1.87 (1.50–2.27)
|
2.0 (1.5–2.8)
|
|
Guinea-Bissau
|
|
|
3.9 (2.4–5.9)
|
|
Mauritania
|
2.40 (1.76–3.13)
|
2.59 (1.68–3.70)
|
2.9 (2.7–3.5)
|
|
Niger
|
5.04 (2.91–8.60)
|
5.04 (2.63–8.18)
|
|
|
Nigeria
|
|
2.09 (0.10–6.56)
|
1.6 (0.7–3.1)
|
|
Senegal
|
|
1.42 (0.12–4.09)
|
0.2 (0.1–0.5)
|
|
Somalia
|
|
3.19 (2.29–4.23)
|
|
|
Togo
|
|
|
1.1 (0.2–2.6)
|
|
Tunisia
|
|
15.33 (12.85–18.00)
|
0.2 (0.1–0.4)
|
|
Uganda
|
|
3.07 (1.54–5.11)
|
0.2 (0.1–0.4)
|
|
Asia
|
|
Mongolia
|
8.03 (5.26–12.08)
|
8.31 (4.15–13.73)
|
4.0 (3.2–4.8)
|
|
Pakistan
|
2.43 (1.63–3.62)
|
1.31 (0.11–3.81)
|
0.6 (0.1–1.7)
|
|
Vietnam
|
|
|
1.4 (0.7–2.3)
|
|
Europe
|
|
Greenland
|
|
1.88 (0.61–3.85)
|
|
|
Republic of Moldova
|
|
1.40 (0.71–2.32)
|
1.3 (0.8–1.9)
|
|
Oceania
|
|
Australia
|
4.75 (3.96–5.70)
|
|
0.01 (0.0–0.02)
|
|
Micronesia
|
|
4.40 (2.53–6.47)
|
|
|
Nauru
|
4.01 (3.51–4.59)
|
4.01 (3.49–4.57)
|
|
|
South America
|
|
Brazil
|
2.09 (0.37–5.10)
|
1.13 (0.24–2.66)
|
0.05 (0.01–0.2)
|
|
Columbia
|
1.22 (0.72–1.84)
|
1.94 (0.72–3.72)
|
|
|
Venezuela
|
0.92 (0.28–1.86)
|
1.72 (0.84–2.90)
|
|
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; HDV, hepatitis delta virus.
Accurately assessing HDV global epidemiology is challenging, in part due to insufficient
screening, variable estimates from individual countries, and inaccurate and outdated
information.[21]
[22] Among the main challenges in describing HDV epidemiology is insufficient screening/testing,
particularly in primary care settings.[23] Reports show that only 8.5 to 12% of HBsAg-positive patients were tested for HDV
in the United States; the majority of such tests were ordered by gastroenterologists/hepatologists.[16]
[24] Similar percentages of patients positive for HBsAg are tested in Europe (8.2%).[23] Inconsistent screening recommendations also contribute to the lack of testing ([Table 2]). The European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) and the Asian Pacific
Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) recommend universal HDV screening for
patients with HBV,[25]
[26] whereas the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) recommends
only risk-based screening.[20] Since EASL updated its HDV guideline in 2018 and recommended universal screening,
testing increased from 7.5% (2015–2017) to 9.4% (2018–2021) in Spain.[23] The continued low levels of testing—despite the universal screening recommendation—highlight
additional barriers to HDV screening, which can be grouped into educational and diagnostic
challenges. Educational challenges include limited/conflicting guidance on HDV screening,
limited healthcare provider education/awareness of HDV,[21] and lack of motivation to screen owing to the paucity of approved therapeutic options.
Diagnostic challenges to screening include limited availability of HDV tests[24]
[26] and lack of standardization of HDV RNA tests, though commercial HDV RNA assays with
better standardization are now available.[26]
[27]
[28]
Table 2
HDV screening recommendations
|
EASL[25]
|
• Patients with chronic HBV infection should be screened for coinfection with HDV
• Long-term follow-up HDV RNA monitoring for all treated patients with HBV–HDV coinfection
as long as HBsAg is present in serum
|
|
APASL[26]
|
• Coinfection with HDV should be assessed in patients with chronic HBV infection
• In patients with HBV-HDV coinfection, it is important to determine which virus is
dominant, and the patient should be treated accordingly
• Patients should be monitored for 6 months posttreatment and beyond
|
|
AASLD[20]
|
• HBsAg-positive persons at high risk of HDV should be screened
○ Persons from regions with high HDV endemicity
▪ Africa (West Africa, horn of Africa)
▪ Asia (Central and Northern Asia, Vietnam, Mongolia, Pakistan, Japan, Taiwan)
▪ Pacific Islands (Kiribati, Nauru)
▪ Middle East (all countries)
▪ Eastern Europe (Eastern Mediterranean regions, Turkey)
▪ South America (Amazon basin)
▪ Other (Greenland)
○ Persons who have injected drugs
○ Men who have sex with men
○ Individuals infected with HCV or HIV
○ Persons with multiple sexual partners or history of sexually transmitted disease
○ Individuals with elevated ALT or AST with low or undetectable HBV DNA
• If there is any uncertainty regarding the need to test, an initial anti-HDV test
is recommended
• For those at risk for HDV acquisition, periodic retesting is recommended
|
Abbreviations: AASLD, American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases; ALT, alanine
transaminase; APASL, Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver; AST, aspartate
transaminase; EASL, European Association for the Study of the Liver; HBsAg, HBV surface
antigen; HBV, hepatitis B virus; HCV, hepatitis C virus; HDV, hepatitis delta virus.
Another major challenge in assessing HDV global epidemiology is the variability of
estimates from individual countries. HDV prevalence continues to be a subject of debate,
with most recent studies suggesting prevalence has been underestimated.[22]
[29]
[30] Estimates of HDV prevalence reported for the same country can vary depending on
geographic regions surveyed and populations studied. A meta-analysis in Turkey revealed
that even within a single country, prevalence estimates can vary widely.[31] Estimates in west Turkey from six studies showed an HDV prevalence of 4.8%, while
estimates in central Turkey were 12% from two studies (> 1,995), and estimates in
southeast Turkey, from two studies, were as high as 27.7% (> 1,995).[31] In the United States, a studied cohort of persons in Southern California from Mongolia
showed 34% of individuals positive for HBsAg were also HDV positive,[32] which is much higher than the estimate for the general population in the United
States of 5.9% and reflective of the high HDV prevalence within Mongolia.[11]
HDV has eight distinct genotypes, each with two to four subtypes, with approximately
35% sequence disparity among genotypes.[33] The predominant genotype in a geographic region varies ([Fig. 1]) with genetic diversity among genotypes and within genotypes.[33] Genotype 1 is the most prevalent and is predominant in Europe and North America.[9] Genotype 2 is most common in Asia and the Middle East.[9] In comparison to Genotype 2, Genotype 1 has a higher risk of adverse outcomes and
lower rates of remission.[34] Genotype 3, associated with the most pathogenic/severe liver disease and known locally
as Labrea fever/hepatitis,[35]
[36] is found in the Amazon Basin[9] and is the most divergent from other genotypes.[37] Infection with HDV Genotype 3 may have been mistaken for yellow fever in the past
because of clinical similarities.[38] Genotype 4 is found in Taiwan and China.[9] Genotypes 5, 6, 7, and 8 are found in Africa,[9]
[33] although Genotypes 5, 6, and 7 are now also found in Europe.[9]
Fig. 1 Global epidemiology of hepatitis delta virus and viral genotype.[27]
Structure, Replication, and Natural History
Structure, Replication, and Natural History
HDV is 35 to 37 nm in diameter,[1]
[2]
[3] with an outer lipoprotein envelope, typically composed of HBV-derived lipoproteins
surrounding a single-stranded circular RNA genome, composed of almost 1,700 nucleotides
(genotype dependent; [Fig. 2]).[39]
[40]
[41] The RNA genome encodes for only two proteins, the small and large HDV antigen (S-
and L-DAg, respectively).[42]
[43] The S-DAg is required for replication and is produced via transcription of the open
reading frame using the host cell's RNA polymerase II.[42]
[44]
[45]
[46] During transcription, the L-DAg is formed by adenosine deaminase-1,[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51] converting a stop codon to one encoding tryptophan, thus extending the sequence
by 19 amino acids.[42] Within the extended region of L-DAg, a prenylation site allows the antigen to become
farnesylated (posttranslational modification of proteins involved in signal transduction,
which facilitates their membrane association), a requirement of the HDV assembly process.[52]
[53] Disruption at this site prevents L-DAg's ability to either interact with or form
secreted particles with the HBsAg.
Fig. 2 Structures of HBV and HDV. HDV is composed of an outer lipoprotein envelope, typically
made of the three HBsAg subtypes (large, medium, and small). Inside is an inner ribonucleoprotein
structure containing the single-stranded circular RNA HDV genome. The HDV genome encodes
the DAg, which exists in two forms: small (S-DAg; 24 kDa, 195 amino acids) and large
(L-DAg; 27 kDa, 214 amino acids). Ag, antigen; DAg, HDV antigen; ds, double stranded;
HBsAg, HBV surface antigen; HBV, hepatitis B virus; HDV, hepatitis delta virus.
HDV replication occurs solely within hepatocytes[42] and spreads through the liver via extracellular or cell division–mediated pathways.
The most established route is extracellular—sodium taurocholate cotransporting polypeptides
(NTCP) receptor-HDV virions are released from infected hepatocytes to infect neighboring
cells ([Fig. 3]).[54] In the alternative route, HDV survives cell division, replication is established
in both daughter cells, and HDV spread is amplified.[54] Once HBV and HDV have entered hepatocytes via NTCP, the viruses have different replication
cycles,[4] which explains why HBV nucleotide analogs (NAs) are ineffective against HDV infection.[55]
Fig. 3. Life cycle of HDV. (1) The HBsAg envelope of the HDV virion binds to the extracellular loop(s) of the sodium
taurocholate cotransporting polypeptides (NTCP) receptor. This receptor, a transmembrane
protein and the same receptor HBV uses for entry, mediates the transport of bile acids,
removing them from circulation. (2) The binding with NTCP leads to endocytosis and thus the ribonucleoprotein (RNP)
complex enters the hepatocyte cytoplasm. (3) This allows the HDV RNP complex to enter the nuclei of hepatocytes, where HDAg mRNA
transcription and replication of HDV RNA occur. (4) L-HDAg is farnesylated by a cellular farnesyltransferase before being retranslocated
to the nucleus. (5) S- and L-HDAg interact with the newly synthesized genomic RNA to form viral RNP
that is exported to the cytoplasm. (6) Viral RNPs interact with the cytosolic part of HBsAg at the endoplasmic reticulum
surface inducing their envelopment. (7) HDV virions are then secreted (modified from Sandmann and Cornberg, 2021[98]). cccDNA, covalently closed circular DNA; HBsAg, hepatitis B surface antigen; HBV,
hepatitis B virus; HDV, hepatitis delta virus; hNTCP, human sodium taurocholate cotransporting
polypeptide; L-HDAg, large hepatitis D antigen; S-HDAg, small HDAg.
Similar to HBV, HDV is spread via parenteral exposure. However, HDV transmission from
mother to offspring, or through sexual contact, has rarely been reported.[56]
[57] HDV can be transmitted via two major patterns: coinfection or superinfection.[58] HBV/HDV coinfection occurs as simultaneous infection with both HBV and HDV.[58] Coinfection typically leads to acute hepatitis. In more than 90% of cases, HBV/HDV
coinfection ends in complete viral clearance and is self-limiting; as HDV is dependent
on HBV, the rate of HDV chronicity cannot be any higher than the rate of HBV chronicity
from that acute infection of HBV.[21]
[27]
[58] In rare cases, coinfection may cause severe acute hepatitis with the potential for
a fulminant disease course.[59] With an acute HDV infection, patients may present with nonspecific flu-like symptoms,
including nausea, fatigue, anorexia, and lethargy with high levels of aminotransferases
following an incubation period of 3 to 7 weeks.[21]
[58]
[60]
With the transmission pattern of superinfection, HDV infection occurs in an individual
who has chronic HBV.[21]
[58] This pattern of infection causes severe acute hepatitis. HDV is cleared spontaneously
in only a minority of patients with chronic inactive HBV (HBsAg carriers) with HDV
superinfection.[59] Up to 80% of cases progress to CHD infection (infection that has not cleared within
6 months).[58] Clinically, these patients may have nonspecific symptoms or be asymptomatic. Three
patterns of CHD have been described: (1) predominant HDV occurs in the majority of
patients; HDV replication dominates and suppresses HBV replication; (2) similar viral
loads, in which replication of HDV and HBV is comparable; and (3) more rarely predominant
HBV, in which HBV replication dominates HDV replication.[21] Multiple studies have reported no impact on HDV outcomes associated with HBV viral
load, possibly because HDV suppresses HBV replication in the majority of cases.[21]
CHD clinical outcomes are typically worse than HBV monoinfection,[21] increasing the risk of cirrhosis by two- to threefold, HCC by three- to sixfold,[6]
[10] and hepatic decompensation by twofold.[21] CHD more often requires liver transplantation,[61] increasing risk twofold compared to HBV monoinfection. CHD also doubles the risk
of mortality.[21] Additionally, CHD is associated with rapid progression of liver disease. Patients
with CHD develop cirrhosis in approximately 5 years and HCC within 10 years, far faster
than those with HBV monoinfection. Male gender, chronic infection/liver disease at
the time of presentation, and lack of antiviral therapy are associated with disease
progression and advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis in HDV patients.[62] Low albumin, older age, high gamma-glutamyl transferase, and low cholinesterases
are likewise associated with advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis in HDV patients.[63]
Using variables associated with the development of worse clinical outcomes (age, sex,
regions of origin, cirrhosis, bilirubin, platelets, and international normalized ratio
[INR]), a baseline-event-anticipation score for HDV was developed.[64] Based on this score, it is possible to predict outcomes—from as low as 6% to as
high as an 80% chance of future clinical events.[65] Patients with persistent HDV viremia have worse prognoses based on this scoring
model[65]; however, one study showed about a quarter of untreated, chronically HDV-infected
patients had a 2 or more log decrement in HDV RNA levels, and roughly 20% reach undetectability
when followed up for approximately 5 years.[66] About 30 to 50% of HDV-infected patients have cirrhosis at diagnosis[67]; while the long-term prognosis is poor even for those without cirrhosis at baseline,
there is a growing awareness of a substantial group of patients with a more indolent
disease course.[68] Taken together, these data suggest some variability in the outcomes of individuals
with CHD, perhaps due to differences in patient characteristics
Diagnosis, Testing, Staging, and Surveillance
Diagnosis, Testing, Staging, and Surveillance
Since HDV is a satellite virus of HBV, every HBsAg-positive patient at risk should
be tested for HDV infection via serum-based testing.[69] Often, the first step in screening is antibody testing (total HDV antibody) to determine
the presence of the HDV antigen.[70]
[71] The WHO diagnostic criteria for HDV infection are high levels of anti-HDV immunoglobulin
M (IgM) and immunoglobulin G (IgG) with confirmation by HDV RNA detection in the serum.[12] IgM antibody serum levels for HDV are detectable approximately 2 to 4 weeks after
symptom onset and often disappear 2 months after acute infection.[60]
[70] However, IgM levels can be elevated in patients with CHD during flares; thus, anti-HDV
IgM levels cannot be used to differentiate between acute and CHD infection.[70] Assessing serologic patterns of HDV and HBV antibody markers can differentiate superinfection
from coinfection, which is important for prognosis and management.[71] Superinfection is characterized by a serologic pattern of anti-HDV IgM antibodies
(followed by detection of anti-HDV IgG antibodies) and anti-HBc IgG antibodies in
the serum, the latter representing more established HBV infection, typically in chronic
inactive HBV infection (carrier). The serologic pattern for coinfection is the detection
of anti-HDV IgM antibodies (with seroconversion to IgG), high levels of HDV RNA in
the serum, and detection of anti-HBc IgM antibodies, the last of which is associated
with recent HBV infection.[60] Anti-HDV IgM antibody serum levels are associated with HDV inflammatory and biochemical
disease activity.[72] However, there is no correlation between the stage of liver disease and levels of
HDV RNA.[73]
Staging of liver disease (fibrosis) is an important part of the HDV diagnostic workup,
as HDV infection is often severe.[27] Stages of liver disease (METAVIR staging system) range from no scarring (fibrosis
[F]0) to cirrhosis (advanced scarring, F4).[74] Liver biopsies are traditionally used to assess fibrosis.[27]
[63] However, biopsies are invasive and can have complications.[75] Noninvasive tests include serum markers or liver stiffness measurements through
vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE; FibroScan, Echosens, Baarn, the
Netherlands).[63]
[76]
[77]
[78] Serum fibrosis markers have lower performance accuracy in patients with CHD Genotype
1 versus those with HBV only or HCV.[78] However, in HDV Genotype 3, there is evidence suggesting aspartate transferase-to-platelet
ratio index and F4 scores may identify significant fibrosis.[76] Use of VCTE was validated for HBV and HCV and is the preferred noninvasive test
with superior performance compared to serum markers of liver fibrosis and cirrhosis.[77]
[79] In HDV, VCTE testing performance was comparable to that seen for HBV and HCV, suggesting
it is a useful noninvasive test for determining fibrosis in HDV.[77] However, serum markers and VCTE may overestimate fibrosis scores because of the
increased severity of hepatic inflammation in HBV/HDV.[78]
In addition to the HDV diagnostic workup, most guidelines recommend HCC screening
due to the increased HCC risk associated with HDV. Globally, liver cancer is the second
most common cause of cancer-related death among men.[80] Increased risk for progression to HCC in HDV may be due to HDV-inducing oncogenic
mechanisms; HDV enhances HBV oncogenic properties, such as enhanced transforming growth
factor-beta signaling.[81] Similar to screening for HDV, guidelines differ in their recommendations for HCC
screening. AASLD guidelines recommend patients positive with HBsAg be screened for
HCC independent of cirrhosis, whereas EASL and APASL suggest a more individualized
approach to HCC screening dependent on risk factors.[20]
[25]
[26]
Therapy
The goal of HDV treatment is sustained HDV virologic response (negative HDV RNA 6
months after stopping treatment), although ideally therapy would lead to a clearance
of HBsAg.[82] The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has proposed a combined response endpoint
for clinical trials: more than 2 log10 IU/mL decrement in HDV RNA coupled with normalization of alanine transaminase (ALT)
level.[83] NA, despite suppressing serum HBV DNA, are ineffective for HDV treatment, since
HDV has no reverse transcriptase enzyme. Treating HDV is challenging due to its unique
nature and severity.[82] To date, there are no therapies approved by the U.S. FDA for the treatment of HDV.
However, there are several therapies in development ([Fig. 4]).
Fig. 4 HDV therapies in development (modified from Sandmann and Cornberg, 2021[98]). cccDNA, covalently closed circular DNA; EU, European Union; HBsAg, hepatitis B
surface antigen; HBV, hepatitis B virus; HDV, hepatitis delta virus; hNTCP, human
sodium taurocholate cotransporting polypeptide; L-HDAg, large hepatitis D antigen.
Immune Modulators/Interferon
Interferon is the only therapy recommended for use (off-label) as treatment of HDV.
The most recent AASLD guidance on HBV recommends a 12-month course of peginterferon
alfa (PegIFN-2a) for elevated HDV RNA and ALT levels.[20] However, treatment success is low. In a study assessing PegIFN-2a monotherapy versus
PegIFN-2a in combination with ribavirin, monotherapy resulted in only 20% of patients
achieving sustained HDV clearance.[84] Adverse events (AE) were common on therapy, with dose modifications required for
50% of patients on PegIFN-2a monotherapy.[84] Likewise, relapses are frequent; in a 5-year follow-up of a trial of PegIFN-2a with
or without adefovir dipivoxil, 56% of patients with HDV infection who had achieved
sustained virologic response had a virologic relapse after therapy was discontinued.[85]
PegIFN-lambda appears to be better tolerated than PegIFN-2a and has been assessed
in several clinical trials. Patients receiving PegIFN-lambda showed durable virologic
response after 24 weeks of follow-up subsequent to 48 weeks of therapy with better
tolerability than seen previously with PegIFN-2a.[86] Patients with low viral load at baseline were more apt to achieve undetectable HDV
viremia at the end of the study period.[86] PegIFN-lambda Phase 3 trials are ongoing. PegIFN-lambda is also being investigated
in combination with lonafarnib, a prenylation inhibitor in development (see below).
Compared to PegIFN-lambda monotherapy, the combination of PegIFN-lambda and lonafarnib
showed greater HDV viral decline (> 2 log10 IU/mL decline).[87]
NTCP Antagonists
Bulevirtide (previously called myrcludex-B) is an HDV-entry inhibitor that acts on
NTCP, blocking cell entry of HBV and HDV. In clinical trials, bulevirtide as monotherapy
and in combination with PegIFN-2a through 24 weeks of therapy resulted in high rates
of viral decline: HDV RNA decline was −2.32 and −3.81 log10 IU/mL, respectively.[88] Among patients receiving bulevirtide 2 mg as monotherapy for 24 weeks, 55% had a
virologic response, 53% had a biochemical response, and 37% had a combined response.[88] No serious AEs related to bulevirtide and no AEs leading to discontinuation were
reported.[88] A study of bulevirtide in combination with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) showed
54, 50, and 77% of patients on 2, 5, and 10 mg of bulevirtide with TDF, respectively,
achieved undetectable HDV RNA at 24 weeks.[89] At 48 weeks of bulevirtide monotherapy, the combined primary endpoint response (>
2 log10 decrease in HDV RNA or undetectable RNA and ALT normalization) rate was 45% for 2 mg and 48% for 10 mg, suggesting no advantage
associated with the higher dose.[90] In a large, real-world cohort, bulevirtide was well tolerated up to 24 months, and
strong antiviral responses were observed.[91] In July 2020, bulevirtide dosed at 2 mg/day received conditional marketing authorization
in the European Union for the treatment of CHD infection in plasma (or serum) HDV
RNA–positive adult patients with compensated liver disease.[92]
Prenylation Inhibitors
Lonafarnib is an orally administered farnesyltransferase inhibitor and prevents L-DAg
prenylation, assembly, and release of HDV particles. Lonafarnib 200 mg, twice daily,
significantly reduced virus levels compared to placebo, and the decline in virus replication
was significantly correlated with serum drug levels.[93] Due to AEs with the 200-mg dosage, treatment with lonafarnib 100 mg twice daily,
either with ritonavir or PegIFN-2a, was evaluated and resulted in a decrease in viremia,
although it was still associated with significant AEs.[93] In another study, patients receiving lonafarnib 50 mg twice daily + ritonavir or
combination regimens of lonafarnib (25 or 50 mg twice daily) + ritonavir + PegIFN-2a,
46 and 89%, respectively, achieved 2 log10 or greater decline or less than lower limit of quantification of HDV RNA from baseline
at the end of treatment.[94] These lesser dosed lonafarnib-containing combination combinations were more tolerable
than lonafarnib + ritonavir alone; most AEs were gastrointestinal symptoms. Given
the antiviral efficacy and tolerability, these combinations hold promise as HDV treatments.
HBsAg Secretion Inhibitors
HBsAg secretion inhibitors can block the release of the HBsAg. In an uncontrolled
Phase 2 study, REP 2139 (a nucleic acid polymer) led to HDV suppression rates greater
than 80% during treatment and were maintained after treatment in greater than 50%
of patients.[95] Evaluation of REP 2139-Ca (calcium chelate complex formulation) in combination with
PegIFN showed that in 7 of 11 patients, HDV RNA was not detected at 24 weeks, and
this was maintained through 3.5 years.[96] Although these results are promising, more data are necessary to better understand
the efficacy and safety of REP 2139.
Future Potential Therapies
Small interfering RNA (siRNA) agents prevent synthesis of viral antigens. There are
several such investigational compounds in Phase 1 or 2 studies, including GalNAc-siRNA,
VIR-2218 (NCT05461170), DCR-HBVS (NCT03772249), and JNJ-3989 (NCT04535544). There
are also three antisense nucleotides in Phase 2 studies, GSK3389404, RO7062931, and
GSK3228836 (NCT04954859).
Therapeutic approaches with available and investigational compounds have been suggested.
One proposed approach is finite-duration therapy using bulevirtide or lonafarnib (with
ritonavir) in combination with either PegIFN-2a or PegIFN-lambda with the treatment
goal of undetectable HDV RNA and HBsAg loss off treatment.[97] A second possible approach is long-term/indefinite maintenance therapy using bulevirtide
or lonafarnib (with ritonavir), similar to NA therapy for HBV. The goal with such
an approach would be to keep HDV RNA undetectable in the presence of HBsAg.[97]
Conclusion
CHD is a substantial public health problem, as it results in severe liver disease
with increased risk of HCC and cirrhosis relative to that posed by HBV monoinfection.
The global HDV prevalence is uncertain, with estimates ranging from 4.5 to 14.6% of
persons positive for HBsAg.[9]
[11] The current risk-based approach to HDV screening in the US is likely inadequate,
and universal screening for HDV infection among persons with known HBV infection may
become the standard of care. Future studies are needed to develop cost-effective approaches
to increase testing for HDV, especially in high-risk groups.
Given the severity of HDV disease and the paucity of treatments, there is a great
unmet need for HDV therapies. Several mechanistic routes aimed at various viral and
cellular targets are in development and hold the promise of improving patient outcomes.
There are several unanswered questions in finding a cure for HDV. First, can current
antiviral therapies in development engender a sustained virologic response/cure? If
so, is interferon required as part of the regimen? Second, are there baseline or on-treatment
predictors for sustained response? Third, are new drugs targeting HBsAg loss effective
in HBV/HDV coinfection? Finally, is HDV sustained virologic response possible without
loss of HBsAg?
Erratum: This article has been updated as per Erratum (DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1776037) published
on October 10, 2023.