Availability of hepatitis C diagnostics and therapeutics in European and Eurasia countries.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with direct acting antiviral agents (DAAs) has provided sustained virological response rates in >95% of patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. However treatment is costly and market access, reimbursement and governmental restrictions differ among countries. We aimed to analyze these differences among European and Eurasian countries. METHODS: A survey including 20-item questionnaire was sent to experts in viral hepatitis. Countries were evaluated according to their income categories by the World Bank stratification. RESULTS: Experts from 26 countries responded to the survey. As of May 2016, HCV prevalence was reported as low (≤1%) in Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, UK; intermediate (1-4%) in Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Italy, Kosovo, Greece, Kazakhstan, Romania, Russia, Serbia and high in Georgia (6.7%). All countries had national guidelines except Albania, Kosovo, Serbia, Tunisia, and UK. Transient elastography was available in all countries, but reimbursed in 61%. HCV-RNA was reimbursed in 81%. PegIFN/RBV was reimbursed in 54% of the countries. No DAAs were available in four countries: Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Serbia, and Tunisia. In others, at least one DAA combination with either PegIFN/RBV or another DAA was available. In Germany and the Netherlands all DAAs were reimbursed without restrictions: Sofosbuvir and sofosbuvir/ledipasvir were free of charge in Georgia. CONCLUSION: Prevalence of HCV is relatively higher in lower-middle and upper-middle income countries. DAAs are not available or reimbursed in many Eurasia and European countries. Effective screening and access to care are essential for reducing liver-related morbidity and mortality.

Daclatasvir Plus Asunaprevir Dual Therapy for Chronic HCV Genotype 1b Infection: Results of Turkish Early Access Program

Abstract: Background. Daclatasvir and asunaprevir dual therapy is approved for the treatment of HCV genotype 1b infection in several countries. Aim. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of daclatasvir and asunaprevir dual therapy in Turkish patients. Material and methods. Sixty-one patients with HCV genotype 1b were enrolled in the Turkish early access program. Most of the patients were in difficult-to-treat category. Patients were visited at each 4 week throughout the follow-up period. Laboratory findings and adverse events were recorded at each visit. Results. Fifty-seven of 61 enrolled patients completed 24 weeks of treatment. Two patients died as a result of underlying diseases at 12-14th weeks of treatment. Two patients stopped the treatment early as a consequence of virological breakthrough, and 2 patients had viral relapse at the post-treatment follow-up. Overall SVR12 rates were 90% (55/61) and 93.2% (55/59) according to intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analysis respectively. In ITT analysis, SVR12 was achieved by 93% (13/14) in relapsers, 80% (12/15) in interferon-ineligible patients and 91% (20/22) in previous nonresponder patients. SVR12 rates were 86.5% and 91.4% in patients with cirrhosis according to ITT and PP analysis respectively. SVR12 was 95.8% in non-cirrhosis group in both analysis. Patients with previous protease inhibitor experience had an SVR12 of 87.5%. Common adverse events developed in 28.8% of patients. There were no treatment related severe adverse event or grade-4 laboratory abnormality. Conclusions. Daclatasvir and asunaprevir dual therapy is found to be effective and safe in difficult-to-treat Turkish patients with HCV genotype 1b infection.

Daclatasvir plus asunaprevir dual therapy for chronic HCV genotype 1b infection: results of Turkish early access program.

 Background. Daclatasvir and asunaprevir dual therapy is approved for the treatment of HCV genotype 1b infection in several countries. AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of daclatasvir and asunaprevir dual therapy in Turkish patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty-one patients with HCV genotype 1b were enrolled in the Turkish early access program. Most of the patients were in difficult-to-treat category. Patients were visited at each 4 week throughout the follow-up period. Laboratory findings and adverse events were recorded at each visit. RESULTS: Fifty-seven of 61 enrolled patients completed 24 weeks of treatment. Two patients died as a result of underlying diseases at 12-14th weeks of treatment. Two patients stopped the treatment early as a consequence of virological breakthrough, and 2 patients had viral relapse at the post-treatment follow-up. Overall SVR12 rates were 90% (55/61) and 93.2% (55/59) according to intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analysis respectively. In ITT analysis, SVR12 was achieved by 93% (13/14) in relapsers, 80% (12/15) in interferon-ineligible patients and 91% (20/22) in previous nonresponder patients. SVR12 rates were 86.5% and 91.4% in patients with cirrhosis according to ITT and PP analysis respectively. SVR12 was 95.8% in non-cirrhosis group in both analysis. Patients with previous protease inhibitor experience had an SVR12 of 87.5%. Common adverse events developed in 28.8% of patients. There were no treatment related severe adverse event or grade-4 laboratory abnormality. CONCLUSIONS: Daclatasvir and asunaprevir dual therapy is found to be effective and safe in difficult-to-treat Turkish patients with HCV genotype 1b infection.

Is HCV genotyping cost-effective even when the prevalences of genotypes 2 and 3 are low?

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The management of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is costly. Genotyping determines the indication, probability of response, and duration of treatment and the dose of ribavirin. Although genotyping is accepted cost-effective, the cost of genotyping in all of the patients to find out a minority may offset the gain. The present study aimed; (1) to determine the frequency rate of HCV genotypes and (2) to compare the cost of HCV treatment tailored according to the genotype versus that planned supposing it to be genotype 1. METHODOLOGY: Six centers were included into the study. Name, age, genotype, and serotype of each patient were entered. For genotyping, HCV-RNA was extracted by acid-guanidium-phenol-chloroform method. Cost of genotyping, HCV-RNA studies and the treatment with pegylated interferon and ribavirin was estimated. The cost was determined according to two scenarios: (A) To manage patients as if all had genotypes other than 2-3. (B) To manage them after determining the geno type. The management was assumed to be made by current guidelines. RESULTS: The data of 834 patients were analyzed: Genotypel was predominant: 730 (87.5%). The rest was composed of G2:26 (3.1%), G3:26 (3.1%), G4:14 (1.7%), mixed: 13 (1.6%), undetermined: 25(3%). The cost of approach A (for 100 patients) was 1,718,200 USD; that of approach B (for 100 patients) was 1,671,900 USD. With genotype targeted therapy, every 100 patient would save 46,300 USD. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalent genotype in our country is genotypel. The sum of genotypes 2 and 3 corresponds to 6%. Genotyping HCV and tailoring the treatment thereafter are cost-effective even in the countries where prevalence of these genotypes is low.