Comparative Real Life Egyptian Experience of the Combination of Sofosbuvir Plus Daclatasvir or Simeprevir for 12 Weeks in Naïve Cirrhotic Patients Infected with HCV Genotype 4.

BACKGROUND: Chronic infection with HCV is progressive worldwide health problem and the core reason for liver cirrhosis, portal hypertension, or hepatocellular carcinoma. HCV-G4 represents the most common threat to transplantation of the liver in Egypt. New interferon-free regimens have been started consuming direct-acting antiviral oral tablets for HCV cure. OBJECTIVES: In the current study, comparing the safety and efficacy of DAAs combination regimens including sofosbuvir with daclatasvir or sofosbuvir with simeprevir plus ribavirin for naïve cirrhotic Egyptian patients infected with HCV-G4 was our main goal. METHODS: We recruited 150 naïve cirrhotic HCV patients from the Tropical patients' clinic at Fayoum General Hospital. They were classified randomly into two groups, group one (n=75 patients) were administrated Sofosbuvir plus simeprevir (400 mg and 150 mg once daily respectively ) for twelve weeks, and group two (n=75 patients) were administrated Sofosbuvir plus Daclatasvir (400 mg and 60 mg once daily respectively) with ribavirin (1-1.2 gm daily weight-based) for twelve weeks. Clinical follow-up, laboratory investigations, and viral PCR were measured to detect treatment efficacy, safety, and any adverse events. RESULTS: Sustained virological response rates (SVR12) were 92%and 90.7% in the first and second groups, respectively. The major unfavorable events were fatigue, arthralgia, and weight loss without statistically meaningful differences between study groups. However, anemia and headache were significantly widespread in the second group (P=0.0161 and 0.0495, respectively). We observed four patients with photosensitivity in group I and not observed in the second group. CONCLUSION: The current study revealed that DAAs are safe and effective in the cure of naïve cirrhotic patients chronically infected by HCV-G4 with better results in those treated with sofosbuvir plus simeprevir regimen.

Hand-foot syndrome due to hepatitis C therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Direct-acting antivirals are new drugs for chronic hepatitis C treatment. They are usually safe and well tolerated, but can sometimes cause serious adverse effects and there is no consensus on how to treat or prevent them. We described a case of hand-foot syndrome due to hepatitis C virus interferon-free therapy. METHODS: We report the case of a 49-year-old man with compensated liver cirrhosis due to chronic hepatitis C genotype 1, treatment-naïve, who started viral treatment with sofosbuvir, simeprevir and ribavirin for 12 weeks. RESULTS: At the sixth week of treatment he had anemia, requiring a lower dose of ribavirin. At the tenth week, he had erythematous, pruritic, scaly and flaky lesions on hands and feet, which showed a partial response to oral antihistamines and topical corticosteroids. It was not necessary to discontinue antiviral treatment, but in the first week after the end of treatment, there was worsening of injuries, including signs of secondary infection, that required hospitalization, antibiotics and oral corticosteroid, with progressive improvement. Biopsy of the lesions was consistent with pharmacodermia. The patient had sustained a virological response, despite the side effect. He had a history of pharmacodermia one year ago attributed to the use of topiramate, responsive to oral corticosteroid. CONCLUSION: Interferon-free therapies can rarely lead to severe adverse reactions, such as skin lesions. Patients receiving ribavirin combinations and those who had a history of pharmacodermia or skin disease may be more susceptible. There is no consensus on how to prevent skin reactions in these patients.

Multicenter Experience using Ledipasvir/Sofosbuvir ± RBV to Treat HCV GT 1 Relapsers after Simeprevir and Sofosbuvir Treatment.

INTRODUCTION AND AIM: Approximately 10%-15% of patients with hepatitis C genotype 1 (HCV GT1) experience virological relapse after all-oral antiviral regimen using simeprevir (SMV) and sofosbuvir (SOF). The efficacy and safety of treating such relapsers using ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF) with/without ribavirin (RBV) has been limited. OBJECTIVE: Report the virological response and safety of LDV/SOF with/without RBV for 12-24 weeks in treating HCV GT1 relapsers after SMV + SOF. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients treated with standardized clinical protocol utilizing LDV/SOF with/without RBV at three transplant centers were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Forty-five patients (29% post-LT, 82% male, 13% non-white, 73% subtype 1a, 86% IL28B CT/TT, 78% F3-4) started LDV/SOF with/without RBV at a median of 22 weeks (range 7-55 weeks) after the last dose of SMV+SOF treatment. Thirty-seven patients received LDV/SOF for 24 weeks (24/37 patients with RBV) and eight patients received LDV/SOF for 12 weeks (5/8 patients with RBV). RBV dose was adjusted for renal function. Sixteen patients who were RBV-ineligible received LDV/SOF without RBV for 12 or 24 weeks. SVR 12 was achieved in 96% (43/45) of patients. Baseline viral load, RBV use, or GT1 subtype did not impact SVR 12. Minimal adverse events were reported in those without RBV; 45% of patients who received RBV developed significant anemia requiring RBV dose reduction and/or discontinuation. In LT recipients, minimal immunosuppression dose adjustments were required and no biopsy-proven acute rejection occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with LDV/SOF with/without RBV for 12-24 weeks was very well tolerated and resulted in high SVR 12 rates (96%) in HCV GT1 relapsers to SMV + SOF treatment.

Hand-foot syndrome due to hepatitis C therapy

SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Direct-acting antivirals are new drugs for chronic hepatitis C treatment. They are usually safe and well tolerated, but can sometimes cause serious adverse effects and there is no consensus on how to treat or prevent them. We described a case of hand-foot syndrome due to hepatitis C virus interferon-free therapy. METHODS We report the case of a 49-year-old man with compensated liver cirrhosis due to chronic hepatitis C genotype 1, treatment-naïve, who started viral treatment with sofosbuvir, simeprevir and ribavirin for 12 weeks. RESULTS At the sixth week of treatment he had anemia, requiring a lower dose of ribavirin. At the tenth week, he had erythematous, pruritic, scaly and flaky lesions on hands and feet, which showed a partial response to oral antihistamines and topical corticosteroids. It was not necessary to discontinue antiviral treatment, but in the first week after the end of treatment, there was worsening of injuries, including signs of secondary infection, that required hospitalization, antibiotics and oral corticosteroid, with progressive improvement. Biopsy of the lesions was consistent with pharmacodermia. The patient had sustained a virological response, despite the side effect. He had a history of pharmacodermia one year ago attributed to the use of topiramate, responsive to oral corticosteroid. CONCLUSION Interferon-free therapies can rarely lead to severe adverse reactions, such as skin lesions. Patients receiving ribavirin combinations and those who had a history of pharmacodermia or skin disease may be more susceptible. There is no consensus on how to prevent skin reactions in these patients.

RESUMO INTRODUÇÃO Antivirais de ação direta são as novas drogas utilizadas no tratamento da hepatite C crônica. São geralmente seguros, com boa tolerância, mas eventualmente podem causar efeitos adversos graves, e não há consenso sobre como tratá-los ou preveni-los. Descrevemos um caso de síndrome mão-pé secundária à terapia livre de interferon para hepatite C crônica. Materiais e métodos Relatamos o caso de um paciente de 49 anos com cirrose hepática compensada secundária à hepatite C crônica, genótipo 1, virgem de tratamento, que iniciou terapia com sofosbuvir, simeprevir e ribavirina por 12 semanas. Resultados Na sexta semana de tratamento, apresentou anemia, sendo necessária redução de dose da ribavirina. Na 20a semana, apresentou lesões eritematosas e descamativas, com prurido em mãos e pés, que teve resposta parcial ao uso de anti-histamínico oral e corticoide tópico. Não foi necessário descontinuar os antivirais, mas na primeira semana após o término do tratamento, houve piora das lesões, com sinais de infecção secundária, sendo necessárias hospitalização e terapia com antibiótico e corticoide oral, com melhora progressiva. Biópsias das lesões foram compatíveis com farmacodermia. O paciente teve resposta virológica sustentada, apesar dos efeitos adversos. Tinha história de farmacodermia há um ano, atribuída ao uso de topiramato, responsiva a corticoterapia oral. Conclusão Os tratamentos livres de interferon raramente causam eventos adversos graves, como lesões cutâneas. Pacientes em uso de ribavirina e com história de farmacodermia ou doença cutânea prévia podem ser mais susceptíveis. Não existe consenso sobre como prevenir reações cutâneas nesses pacientes.

Efficacy and safety of direct antiviral agents in a cohort of cirrhotic HCV/HIV-coinfected patients.

Background: New direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs) have shown great efficacy and tolerability in clinical trials and real-life cohorts. However, data are scarce regarding efficacy and safety in cirrhotic HCV/HIV-coinfected patients. Methods: A multicentre prospective analysis was performed in 13 Spanish hospitals, including all cirrhotic HCV/HIV-coinfected patients starting DAA combinations from January to December 2015. Sustained virological response 12 weeks after treatment (SVR12) was analysed. Withdrawal due to toxicity and/or hepatic decompensation and change in liver stiffness measurement (LSM) after HCV treatment were evaluated. Results: Patients (n = 170) were mostly male (n = 125; 74.3%) with the following HCV genotype (Gt) distribution: Gt-1a, 68 (40%); Gt-1b, 21 (12.4%); Gt-4, 47 (27.6%); and Gt-3, 26 (15.3%). Baseline median LSM was 20.6 kPa (IQR 16.1-33.7) and log10 HCV-RNA 6.1 IU/mL (IQR 5.7-6.5). Most patients had a Child-Pugh class A score (n = 127; 74.7%) and 28 (16.5%) had prior hepatic decompensation. There were 89 (52.4%) pretreated patients with 40.4% (n = 36) of null responders. Preferred regimens were as follows: sofosbuvir/ledipasvir + ribavirin, 43 (25.3%) patients; sofosbuvir + simeprevir + ribavirin, 34 (20%); sofosbuvir/ledipasvir, 26 (15.3%) and sofosbuvir + daclatasvir + ribavirin, 25 (14.7%). Overall SVR12 was 92.9% (158/170), without differences between genotypes. Pretreated patients had lower SVR12 rates compared with naive (88.8% versus 97.5%; P = 0.026). Treatment failures were as follows: 7 (4.1%) relapses; 2 (1.2%) lost to follow-up; 1 (0.6%) toxicity-related discontinuation; 1 (0.6%) hepatic decompensation; and 1 (0.6%) viral breakthrough. On-treatment hepatic decompensation was recorded in four (2.4%) patients (encephalopathy and ascites, two each). Paired LSM in 33 patients showed a decrease of 5.6 kPa (95% CI 1.8-9.2; P = 0.004). Conclusions: In our cohort of cirrhotic HCV/HIV-coinfected patients, DAAs were highly safe and efficacious. Viral eradication was associated with a significant decrease in liver stiffness.

Pharmacokinetic Interactions between Simeprevir and Ledipasvir in Treatment-Naive Hepatitis C Virus Genotype 1-Infected Patients without Cirrhosis Treated with a Simeprevir-Sofosbuvir-Ledipasvir Regimen.

Interactions between simeprevir (hepatitis C virus [HCV] NS3/4A protease inhibitor) and ledipasvir (HCV NS5A replication complex inhibitor) were investigated in treatment-naive HCV genotype 1-infected patients without cirrhosis, treated with simeprevir-sofosbuvir-ledipasvir in a two-panel, phase 2, open-label study. Patients had stable background treatment with sofosbuvir (400 mg once daily [QD]). In panel 1 (n = 20), the effect of ledipasvir (90 mg QD) on simeprevir (150 mg QD) was studied. Patients received simeprevir and sofosbuvir from days 1 to 14; steady-state pharmacokinetics (PK) of simeprevir was assessed (day 14). On day 15, ledipasvir was added and steady-state PK of simeprevir in the combination was evaluated (day 28). In panel 2 (n = 20), the effect of simeprevir on ledipasvir was investigated. From days 1 to 14, patients received ledipasvir and sofosbuvir and steady-state PK of ledipasvir was assessed (day 14). On day 15, simeprevir was added and a full PK profile was obtained (day 28). The least-squares mean maximum plasma concentration and area under the concentration-time curve (90% confidence interval) increased 2.3-fold (2.0- to 2.8-fold) and 3.1-fold (2.4- to 3.8-fold) for simeprevir, respectively (panel 1), and 1.6-fold (1.4- to 1.9-fold) and 1.7-fold (1.6- to 2.0-fold) for ledipasvir, respectively (panel 2), in the presence versus the absence of the other drug. All patients achieved sustained virologic responses 12 weeks after treatment end. Adverse events, mainly grade 1/2, occurred in 80% of patients; the most common was photosensitivity (45%). Due to the magnitude of interaction and the limited amount of safety data available, the use of this treatment combination is not recommended. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT02421211.).

Direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND: Millions of people worldwide suffer from hepatitis C, which can lead to severe liver disease, liver cancer, and death. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs), e.g. sofosbuvir, are relatively new and expensive interventions for chronic hepatitis C, and preliminary results suggest that DAAs may eradicate hepatitis C virus (HCV) from the blood (sustained virological response). Sustained virological response (SVR) is used by investigators and regulatory agencies as a surrogate outcome for morbidity and mortality, based solely on observational evidence. However, there have been no randomised trials that have validated that usage. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of DAAs in people with chronic HCV. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for all published and unpublished trials in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, and BIOSIS; the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China Network Knowledge Information (CNKI), the Chinese Science Journal Database (VIP), Google Scholar, The Turning Research into Practice (TRIP) Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency (EMA) (www.ema.europa.eu/ema/), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (www.fda.gov), and pharmaceutical company sources for ongoing or unpublished trials. Searches were last run in October 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing DAAs versus no intervention or placebo, alone or with co-interventions, in adults with chronic HCV. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, and language. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were hepatitis C-related morbidity, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma, non-serious adverse events (each reported separately), and SVR. We systematically assessed risks of bias, performed Trial Sequential Analysis, and followed an eight-step procedure to assess thresholds for statistical and clinical significance. We evaluated the overall quality of the evidence, using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 138 trials randomising a total of 25,232 participants. The trials were generally short-term trials and designed primarily to assess the effect of treatment on SVR. The trials evaluated 51 different DAAs. Of these, 128 trials employed matching placebo in the control group. All included trials were at high risk of bias. Eighty-four trials involved DAAs on the market or under development (13,466 participants). Fifty-seven trials administered DAAs that were discontinued or withdrawn from the market. Study populations were treatment-naive in 95 trials, had been exposed to treatment in 17 trials, and comprised both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced individuals in 24 trials. The HCV genotypes were genotype 1 (119 trials), genotype 2 (eight trials), genotype 3 (six trials), genotype 4 (nine trials), and genotype 6 (one trial). We identified two ongoing trials.We could not reliably determine the effect of DAAs on the market or under development on our primary outcome of hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality. There were no data on hepatitis C-related morbidity and only limited data on mortality from 11 trials (DAA 15/2377 (0.63%) versus control 1/617 (0.16%); OR 3.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 26.18, very low-quality evidence). We did not perform Trial Sequential Analysis on this outcome.There is very low quality evidence that DAAs on the market or under development do not influence serious adverse events (DAA 5.2% versus control 5.6%; OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15 , 15,817 participants, 43 trials). The Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was sufficient information to rule out that DAAs reduce the relative risk of a serious adverse event by 20% when compared with placebo. The only DAA that showed a lower risk of serious adverse events when meta-analysed separately was simeprevir (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86). However, Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was not enough information to confirm or reject a relative risk reduction of 20%, and when one trial with an extreme result was excluded, the meta-analysis result showed no evidence of a difference.DAAs on the market or under development may reduce the risk of no SVR from 54.1% in untreated people to 23.8% in people treated with DAA (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.52, 6886 participants, 32 trials, low quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Only 1/84 trials on the market or under development assessed the effects of DAAs on health-related quality of life (SF-36 mental score and SF-36 physical score).There was insufficient evidence from trials on withdrawn or discontinued DAAs to determine their effect on hepatitis C-related morbidity and all-cause mortality (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.79; 5 trials, very low-quality evidence). However, these DAAs seemed to increase the risk of serious adverse events (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.73; 29 trials, very low-quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.None of the 138 trials provided useful data to assess the effects of DAAs on the remaining secondary outcomes (ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, and hepatocellular carcinoma). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for our main outcomes of interest come from short-term trials, and we are unable to determine the effect of long-term treatment with DAAs. The rates of hepatitis C morbidity and mortality observed in the trials are relatively low and we are uncertain as to how DAAs affect this outcome. Overall, there is very low quality evidence that DAAs on the market or under development do not influence serious adverse events. There is insufficient evidence to judge if DAAs have beneficial or harmful effects on other clinical outcomes for chronic HCV. Simeprevir may have beneficial effects on risk of serious adverse event. In all remaining analyses, we could neither confirm nor reject that DAAs had any clinical effects. DAAs may reduce the number of people with detectable virus in their blood, but we do not have sufficient evidence from randomised trials that enables us to understand how SVR affects long-term clinical outcomes. SVR is still an outcome that needs proper validation in randomised clinical trials.

Direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND: Millions of people worldwide suffer from hepatitis C, which can lead to severe liver disease, liver cancer, and death. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are relatively new and expensive interventions for chronic hepatitis C, and preliminary results suggest that DAAs may eradicate hepatitis C virus (HCV) from the blood (sustained virological response). However, it is still questionable if eradication of hepatitis C virus in the blood eliminates hepatitis C in the body, and improves survival and leads to fewer complications. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of DAAs in people with chronic HCV. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for all published and unpublished trials in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, and BIOSIS; the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China Network Knowledge Information (CNKI), the Chinese Science Journal Database (VIP), Google Scholar, The Turning Research into Practice (TRIP) Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency (EMA) (www.ema.europa.eu/ema/), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (www.fda.gov), and pharmaceutical company sources for ongoing or unpublished trials. Searches were last run in October 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing DAAs versus no intervention or placebo, alone or with co-interventions, in adults with chronic HCV. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, and language. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were hepatitis C-related morbidity, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma, non-serious adverse events (each reported separately), and sustained virological response. We systematically assessed risks of bias, performed Trial Sequential Analysis, and followed an eight-step procedure to assess thresholds for statistical and clinical significance. The overall quality of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 138 trials randomising a total of 25,232 participants. The 138 trials assessed the effects of 51 different DAAs. Of these, 128 trials employed matching placebo in the control group. All included trials were at high risk of bias. Eighty-four trials involved DAAs on the market or under development (13,466 participants). Fifty-seven trials administered withdrawn or discontinued DAAs. Trial participants were treatment-naive (95 trials), treatment-experienced (17 trials), or both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced (24 trials). The HCV genotypes were genotype 1 (119 trials), genotype 2 (eight trials), genotype 3 (six trials), genotype 4 (nine trials), and genotype 6 (one trial). We identified two ongoing trials.Meta-analysis of the effects of all DAAs on the market or under development showed no evidence of a difference when assessing hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality (OR 3.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 26.18, P = 0.19, I² = 0%, 2,996 participants, 11 trials, very low-quality evidence). As there were no data on hepatitis C-related morbidity and very few data on mortality (DAA 15/2377 (0.63%) versus control 1/617 (0.16%)), it was not possible to perform Trial Sequential Analysis on hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality.Meta-analysis of all DAAs on the market or under development showed no evidence of a difference when assessing serious adverse events (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15, P = 0.52, I² = 0%, 15,817 participants, 43 trials, very low-quality evidence). The Trial Sequential Analysis showed that the cumulative Z-score crossed the trial sequential boundary for futility, showing that there was sufficient information to rule out that DAAs compared with placebo reduced the relative risk of a serious adverse event by 20%. The only DAA that showed a significant difference on risk of serious adverse events when meta-analysed separately was simeprevir (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86). However, Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was not enough information to confirm or reject a relative risk reduction of 20%, and when one trial with an extreme result was excluded, then the meta-analysis result showed no evidence of a difference.DAAs on the market or under development seemed to reduce the risk of no sustained virological response (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.52, P < 0.00001, I² = 77%, 6886 participants, 32 trials, very low-quality evidence) and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Only 1/84 trials on the market or under development assessed the effects of DAAs on health-related quality of life (SF-36 mental score and SF-36 physical score).Withdrawn or discontinued DAAs had no evidence of a difference when assessing hepatitis C-related morbidity and all-cause mortality (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.79, P = 0.40, I² = 0%; 5 trials, very low-quality evidence). However, withdrawn DAAs seemed to increase the risk of serious adverse events (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.73, P = 0.001, I² = 0%, 29 trials, very low-quality evidence), and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Most of all outcome results were short-term results; therefore, we could neither confirm nor reject any long-term effects of DAAs. None of the 138 trials provided useful data to assess the effects of DAAs on the remaining secondary outcomes (ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, and hepatocellular carcinoma). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, DAAs on the market or under development do not seem to have any effects on risk of serious adverse events. Simeprevir may have beneficial effects on risk of serious adverse event. In all remaining analyses, we could neither confirm nor reject that DAAs had any clinical effects. DAAs seemed to reduce the risk of no sustained virological response. The clinical relevance of the effects of DAAs on no sustained virological response is questionable, as it is a non-validated surrogate outcome. All trials and outcome results were at high risk of bias, so our results presumably overestimate benefit and underestimate harm. The quality of the evidence was very low.

Curing Chronic Hepatitis C: A Cost Comparison of the Combination Simeprevir Plus Sofosbuvir vs. Protease-Inhibitor-Based Triple Therapy

ABSTRACT Introduction. Interferon-free, multi-direct acting antiviral (DAA) therapy for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is highly effective and well tolerated, but costly. To gain perspective on the evolving economics of HCV therapy, we compared the cost per cure of a multi-DAA regimen with the prior standard of triple therapy. Material and methods. Patients infected with HCV genotype 1 who were treated through the University of Colorado Hepatology Clinic between May 2011 and December 2014 comprised the study population. The multi-DAA regimen of simeprevir plus sofosbuvir (SMV/SOF) was compared to the triple therapy regimen consisting of peginterferon and ribavirin, with either boceprevir or telaprevir (TT). Sustained-virologic response (SVR) rates, total costs per treatment and adverse events were recorded. Total cost per SVR were compared for the two treatments, controlling for patient demographics and clinical characteristics. Results. One hundred eighty-three patients received SMV/SOF (n = 70) or TT (n = 113). Patients receiving SMV/SOF were older, more treatment experienced, and had a higher stage of fibrosis. SVRs were 86% and 59%, average total costs per patient were $152,775 and $95,943, and average total costs per SVR were $178,237 vs. $161,813.49 for SMV/SOF and TT groups, respectively. Medication costs accounted for 98% of SMV/SOF and 85% of TT treatment costs. Conclusion. The high cure rate of multi-DAA treatment of HCV is offset by the high costs of the DAAs, such that the cost per cure from TT to multi-DAA therapy has been relatively constant. In order to cure more patients, either additional financial resources will need to be allocated to the treatment of HCV or drug costs will need to be reduced.

Aplastic Anemia and Severe Myelosuppression with Boceprevir or Simeprevir-Containing Hepatitis C Virus Treatment

ABSTRACT The addition of the new protease inhibitors (PIs) to peg-interferon (IFN) and ribavirin (RBV), approved for chronic hepatitis C, has clearly improved sustained virological response (SVR) rates although several adverse events have been reported with this regimens, including mild hematological toxicity. Moreover, severe pancytopenia and aplastic anemia during triple therapy with telaprevir has recently been described in seven patients. We report here two cases of severe agranulocytosis/aplastic anemia using boceprevir or simeprevir in interferon-based combination and 2 additional cases of severe myelosupression in IFN-free therapy with sofosbuvir and simeprevir plus RBV. Our observations suggest that PIs could have a sort of class-effect in developing severe hematologic toxicity or, at least, an additive interaction with other potentially myelotoxic agents such as IFN or RBV that are used in the classical regimens against HCV. Unfortunately, the mechanisms behind this phenomenon are currently unknown. In conclusion, given the lifethreatening character of these complications, close monitoring is mandatory in patients under PIs based therapy to promptly detect serious hematological toxicities and to carefully evaluate treatment discontinuation. Prospective studies assessing the usefulness of RBV in the era of new IFN-free combinations are needed.

Direct-Acting Antiviral Therapy Restores Immune Tolerance to Patients With Hepatitis C Virus-Induced Cryoglobulinemia Vasculitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Interferon-free direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapies are effective in patients with hepatitis C virus-induced cryoglobulinemia vasculitis (HCV-CV). We analyzed blood samples from patients with HCV-CV before and after DAA therapy to determine mechanisms of these drugs and their effects on cellular immunity. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of 27 consecutive patients with HCV-CV (median age, 59 y) treated with DAA therapy (21 patients received sofosbuvir plus ribavirin for 24 weeks, 4 patients received sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir for 12 weeks, and 2 patients received sofosbuvir plus simeprevir for 12 weeks) in Paris, France. Blood samples were collected from these patients before and after DAA therapy, and also from 12 healthy donors and 12 individuals with HCV infection without CV. HCV load, cryoglobulins, and cytokines were quantified by flow cytometry, cytokine multiplex assays, and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients (88.9%) had a complete clinical response of CV to DAA therapy at week 24, defined by improvement of all the affected organs and the absence of relapse. Compared with healthy donors and patients with HCV infection without CV, patients with HCV-CV, before DAA therapy, had a lower percentage of CD4+CD25hiFoxP3+ regulatory T cells (P < .01), but higher proportions of IgM+CD21-/low memory B cells (P < .05), CD4+IFNγ+ cells (P < .01), CD4+IL17A+ cells (P < .01), and CD4+CXCR5+interleukin 21+ follicular T-helper (Tfh) cells (P < .01). In patients with HCV-CV, there was a negative correlation between numbers of IgM+CD21-/low memory B cells and T-regulatory cells (P = .03), and positive correlations with numbers of Tfh cells (P = .03) and serum levels of cryoglobulin (P = .01). DAA therapy increased patients' numbers of T-regulatory cells (1.5% ± 0.18% before therapy vs 2.1% ± 0.18% after therapy), decreased percentages of IgM+CD21-/low memory B cells (35.7% ± 6.1% before therapy vs 14.9% ± 3.8% after therapy), and decreased numbers of Tfh cells (12% ± 1.3% before therapy vs 8% ± 0.9% after therapy). Expression levels of B lymphocyte stimulator receptor 3 and programmed cell death 1 on B cells increased in patients with HCV-CV after DAA-based therapy (mean fluorescence units, 37 ± 2.4 before therapy vs 47 ± 2.6 after therapy, P < .01; and 29 ± 7.3 before therapy vs 48 ± 9.3 after therapy, P < .05, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective clinical trial of patients with HCV-CV, DAA-based therapy restored disturbances in peripheral B- and T-cell homeostasis.

Aplastic Anemia and Severe Myelosuppression with Boceprevir or Simeprevir-Containing Hepatitis C Virus Treatment.

The addition of the new protease inhibitors (PIs) to peg-interferon (IFN) and ribavirin (RBV), approved for chronic hepatitis C, has clearly improved sustained virological response (SVR) rates although several adverse events have been reported with this regimens, including mild hematological toxicity. Moreover, severe pancytopenia and aplastic anemia during triple therapy with telaprevir has recently been described in seven patients. We report here two cases of severe agranulocytosis/aplastic anemia using boceprevir or simeprevir in interferon-based combination and 2 additional cases of severe myelosupression in IFN-free therapy with sofosbuvir and simeprevir plus RBV. Our observations suggest that PIs could have a sort of class-effect in developing severe hematologic toxicity or, at least, an additive interaction with other potentially myelotoxic agents such as IFN or RBV that are used in the classical regimens against HCV. Unfortunately, the mechanisms behind this phenomenon are currently unknown. In conclusion, given the lifethreatening character of these complications, close monitoring is mandatory in patients under PIs based therapy to promptly detect serious hematological toxicities and to carefully evaluate treatment discontinuation. Prospective studies assessing the usefulness of RBV in the era of new IFN-free combinations are needed.

Gadoxetic Acid-Enhanced MR Imaging Predicts Simeprevir-Induced Hyperbilirubinemia During Hepatitis C Virus Treatment: A Pilot Study.

Simeprevir is a substrate for organic anion-transporting polypeptides (OATPs) that transport bilirubin. Hyperbilirubinemia is an adverse event reported during treatment of chronic hepatitis C patients with simeprevir plus pegylated interferon and ribavirin. Because gadoxetic acid is also a substrate of OATPs, pretreatment gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may predict hyperbilirubinemia during treatment. This prospective study therefore evaluated 11 consecutive patients with chronic hepatitis C who underwent gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI prior to treatment with simeprevir plus pegylated interferon and ribavirin for 12 weeks, followed by pegylated interferon and ribavirin for an additional 12 weeks. Their contrast enhancement index (CEI), an index of liver parenchymal enhancement during the hepatobiliary phase, was assessed before treatment. Plasma trough concentrations (Ctrough ) of simeprevir were determined 7 days after its administration, and serum bilirubin concentrations were measured throughout the course of treatment. Six patients (55%) developed hyperbilirubinemia (≥1.6 mg/dL) during treatment. Ctrough was significantly higher in patients with than without hyperbilirubinemia (P = .009), with a strong inverse relationship between CEI and Ctrough (r = -0.911, P < .001). CEI was significantly lower in patients with than without hyperbilirubinemia (P = .009), but there were no significant differences between the 2 groups in pretreatment serum albumin concentrations and FIB-4 index, an index of liver fibrosis. Hepatic enhancement with gadoxetic acid was related to Ctrough of simeprevir. Gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging may predict the development of hyperbilirubinemia during treatment of hepatitis C patients with simeprevir plus pegylated interferon and ribavirin.

Sofosbuvir and Simeprevir for Treatment of Recurrent Hepatitis C Infection After Liver Transplant.

OBJECTIVES: Recurrent hepatitis C is universal after liver transplant when viremia is present at the time of transplant, and this affects survival. Previous treatments with pegylated interferon and ribavirin with or without boceprevir or telaprevir have yielded modest sustained virologic response rates and frequent adverse effects. A combination of new antiviral agents has been used for recurrent hepatitis C. We aim to describe the outcomes of recurrent hepatitis C in liver transplant patients treated with simeprevir, sofosbuvir, and ribavirin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-three consecutive patients with recurrent hepatitis C genotype 1 were included. All patients had liver biopsy before enrollment if cirrhosis was not evident. Standard doses of simeprevir and sofosbuvir were used for 12 weeks. Ribavirin was adjusted based on hemoglobin levels. In 53 patients, 50 completed 12 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: All 50 patients who completed 12 weeks of treatment achieved sustained virologic response. One patient who completed only 6 weeks also achieved sustained virologic response. Overall, the antiviral treatment was well tolerated, with no interactions with immunosuppressive drugs. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of simeprevir and sofosbuvir with or without ribavirin yields a high sustained virologic response rate of 96% in a historically difficult to treat patient population (recurrent hepatitis C genotype 1).

Do directly acting antiviral agents for HCV increase the risk of hepatic decompensation and decline in renal function? Results from ERCHIVES.

BACKGROUND: Directly acting antiviral agents (DAA) have been associated with hepatic decompensation, especially in patients with pre-treatment cirrhosis, but this risk is not well defined. AIM: To determine the incidence of hepatic decompensation, liver transplantation, death and worsening renal function in patients treated with a Paritaprevir/ritonavir, Ombitasvir, Dasabuvir (PrOD), sofosbuvir/simeprevir or sofosbuvir/ledipasvir regimen. METHODS: We followed ERCHIVES participants treated with the above regimens for up to 12 weeks post-treatment. We excluded those with HIV, HBsAg+ and pre-existing diagnosis of hepatic decompensation and hepatocellular carcinoma. RESULTS: Of 3728 persons on PrOD, 1578 on sofosbuvir/simeprevir and 10 440 on sofosbuvir/ledipasvir, incidence rates (95% CI) of hepatic decompensation/1000 patient-years were 10.6 (5.89-17.36) for the PrOD, 32.4 (20.74-48.16) for the sofosbuvir/simeprevir and 13.0 (9.74-17.10) for the sofosbuvir/ledipasvir. Among those with baseline cirrhosis, these rates were 36.9 (19.1-64.5), 61.8 (38.2-94.5) and 41.1 (29.9-55.2) respectively, while among those without cirrhosis at baseline, these rates were 2.7 (0.6-8.0), 7.5 (1.5-21.8) and 2.7 (1.2-5.4). Advanced fibrosis was associated with increased risk of hepatic decompensation in all groups [HR (95% CI) per 0.5 unit increase in FIB-4 score: PrOD 1.11 (1.07-1.16); sofosbuvir/simeprevir 1.03 (1.01-1.05); sofosbuvir/ledipasvir 1.02 (1.01-1.03)]. There were no deaths. Proportion of persons with eGFR decrease >30 ml/min/1.73 m2 was higher among the PrOD group, but presence of cirrhosis did not appear to affect this. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of hepatic decompensation in persons treated with PrOD, up to 12 weeks after completion of treatment, was comparable to those treated with sofosbuvir/ledipasvir regimen, and was lower than among those treated with a sofosbuvir/simeprevir regimen. Such risk was predominantly observed in those with pre-treatment cirrhosis.

Simeprevir in combination with sofosbuvir in treatment-naïve and -experienced patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 4 infection: a Phase III, open-label, single-arm study (PLUTO).

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a leading cause of liver cirrhosis and subsequent hepatocellular carcinoma. HCV genotype 4 is found widely in the Middle East, Egypt and Africa, and has also spread into Europe. There are limited data available regarding the use of direct-acting antiviral agents in HCV genotype 4-infected patients with cirrhosis. AIM: To evaluate in the phase III, open-label, single-arm PLUTO study the efficacy and safety of 12 weeks of simeprevir (HCV NS3/4A protease inhibitor) plus sofosbuvir (HCV nucleotide-analogue NS5B polymerase inhibitor) in treatment-naïve and (peg)interferon ± ribavirin-experienced HCV genotype 4-infected patients, with or without compensated cirrhosis. METHODS: Adult patients with chronic HCV genotype 4 infection received simeprevir 150 mg once-daily and sofosbuvir 400 mg once-daily for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was sustained virologic response 12 weeks after the end of treatment (SVR12). Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Forty patients received treatment; the majority were male (73%) and treatment-experienced (68%). Overall, 7/40 (18%) patients had compensated cirrhosis. All patients achieved SVR12 [100% (Clopper-Pearson 95% confidence interval: 91-100%)]. Adverse events, all Grade 1 or 2, were reported in 20/40 (50%) patients. No serious adverse events were reported and no patients discontinued study treatment. Grade 3 treatment-emergent laboratory abnormalities were noted in 2/40 (5%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with simeprevir plus sofosbuvir for 12 weeks resulted in SVR12 rates of 100% in treatment-naïve and -experienced patients with HCV genotype 4 infection with or without compensated cirrhosis, and was well tolerated. [NCT02250807].

Colitis during new direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs) therapy with sofosbuvir, simeprevir and ribavirin for genotype 1b hepatitis C.

Since 2014 several direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) have been made available, allowing interferon-free antiviral treatments with high sustained virological response rates. Side effects are, however, a real challenge during treatment. Sarkar et al. recently published a case of colitis following initiation of sofosbuvir and simeprevir for genotype 1 hepatitis C. We report the case of a patient with no prior history of inflammatory bowel disease, who developed significant bloody diarrhea within 3 weeks of sofosbuvir/simeprevir/ribavirin initiation. Colonoscopy and biopsy suggested a drug-induced colitis.

Sofosbuvir and Simeprevir Treatment of a Stem Cell Transplanted Teenager With Chronic Hepatitis C Infection.

There have been no previous reports on the use of interferon-free combinations in pediatric patients with chronic hepatitis C infection. An infected adolescent with severe sickle cell disease underwent stem cell transplantation and subsequent treatment with sofosbuvir and simeprevir during ongoing immunosuppression. Despite the emergence of peripheral edema as a side effect, treatment was continued with sustained antiviral response.

Daclatasvir combined with sofosbuvir or simeprevir in liver transplant recipients with severe recurrent hepatitis C infection.

Daclatasvir (DCV) is a potent, pangenotypic nonstructural protein 5A inhibitor with demonstrated antiviral efficacy when combined with sofosbuvir (SOF) or simeprevir (SMV) with or without ribavirin (RBV) in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Herein, we report efficacy and safety data for DCV-based all-oral antiviral therapy in liver transplantation (LT) recipients with severe recurrent HCV. DCV at 60 mg/day was administered for up to 24 weeks as part of a compassionate use protocol. The study included 97 LT recipients with a mean age of 59.3 ± 8.2 years; 93% had genotype 1 HCV and 31% had biopsy-proven cirrhosis between the time of LT and the initiation of DCV. The mean Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score was 13.0 ± 6.0, and the proportion with Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) A/B/C was 51%/31%/12%, respectively. Mean HCV RNA at DCV initiation was 14.3 × 6 log10 IU/mL, and 37% had severe cholestatic HCV infection. Antiviral regimens were selected by the local investigator and included DCV+SOF (n = 77), DCV+SMV (n = 18), and DCV+SMV+SOF (n = 2); 35% overall received RBV. At the end of treatment (EOT) and 12 weeks after EOT, 88 (91%) and 84 (87%) patients, respectively, were HCV RNA negative or had levels <43 IU/mL. CTP and MELD scores significantly improved between DCV-based treatment initiation and last contact. Three virological breakthroughs and 2 relapses occurred in patients treated with DCV+SMV with or without RBV. None of the 8 patient deaths (6 during and 2 after therapy) were attributed to therapy. In conclusion, DCV-based all-oral antiviral therapy was well tolerated and resulted in a high sustained virological response in LT recipients with severe recurrent HCV infection. Most treated patients experienced stabilization or improvement in their clinical status.