Clinical outcomes in patients with chronic hepatitis C after direct-acting antiviral treatment: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Although direct-acting antivirals have been used extensively to treat patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, their clinical effectiveness has not been well reported. We compared the incidence of death, hepatocellular carcinoma, and decompensated cirrhosis between patients treated with direct-acting antivirals and those untreated, in the French ANRS CO22 Hepather cohort. METHODS: We did a prospective study in adult patients with chronic HCV infection enrolled from 32 expert hepatology centres in France. We excluded patients with chronic hepatitis B, those with a history of decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, or liver transplantation, and patients who were treated with interferon-ribavirin with or without first-generation protease inhibitors. Co-primary study outcomes were incidence of all-cause mortality, hepatocellular carcinoma, and decompensated cirrhosis. The association between direct-acting antivirals and these outcomes was quantified using time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01953458. FINDINGS: Between Aug 6, 2012, and Dec 31, 2015, 10 166 patients were eligible for the study. 9895 (97%) patients had available follow-up information and were included in analyses. Median follow-up was 33·4 months (IQR 24·0-40·7). Treatment with direct-acting antivirals was initiated during follow-up in 7344 patients, and 2551 patients remained untreated at the final follow-up visit. During follow-up, 218 patients died (129 treated, 89 untreated), 258 reported hepatocellular carcinoma (187 treated, 71 untreated), and 106 had decompensated cirrhosis (74 treated, 32 untreated). Exposure to direct-acting antivirals was associated with increased risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2·77, 95% CI 2·07-3·71) and decompensated cirrhosis (3·83, 2·29-6·42). After adjustment for variables (age, sex, body-mass index, geographical origin, infection route, fibrosis score, HCV treatment-naive, HCV genotype, alcohol consumption, diabetes, arterial hypertension, biological variables, and model for end-stage liver disease score in patients with cirrhosis), exposure to direct-acting antivirals was associated with a decrease in all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 0·48, 95% CI 0·33-0·70) and hepatocellular carcinoma (0·66, 0·46-0·93), and was not associated with decompensated cirrhosis (1·14, 0·57-2·27). INTERPRETATION: Treatment with direct-acting antivirals is associated with reduced risk for mortality and hepatocellular carcinoma and should be considered in all patients with chronic HCV infection. FUNDING: INSERM-ANRS (France Recherche Nord & Sud Sida-HIV Hépatites), ANR (Agence Nationale de la Recherche), DGS (Direction Générale de la Santé), MSD, Janssen, Gilead, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Roche.

Safety and efficacy of the combination simeprevir-sofosbuvir in HCV genotype 1- and 4-mono-infected patients from the French ANRS CO22 hepather cohort.

BACKGROUND: Although real-life results of sofosbuvir/simeprevir have been extensively reported from the United States, data from other geographical areas are limited. In the French observational cohort, ANRS CO22 HEPATHER, 9432 patients were given the new oral antivirals from December 2013 to June 30, 2018. We report the results of sofosbuvir/simeprevir in genotypes 1- and 4-infected patients. METHODS: Demographics and history of liver disease were collected at entry in the cohort. Clinical, adverse events, and virological data were collected throughout treatment and post-treatment follow-up. The choice of treatment duration or addition of ribavirin was left up to the physician. RESULTS: Five hundred ninety-nine HCV (467 genotype 1 and 132 genotype 4) mono-infected, naïve for all oral-DAAs regimen patients were given sofosbuvir/simeprevir with (n = 63) or without ribavirin (n = 536) for 12 or 24 weeks; 56% had cirrhosis (4% decompensated) and 71% had prior treatment failure to interferon-based regimen. 7 patients (1.16%) were lost to follow-up. The overall SVR12 rate was 92.6%. The SVR12 was 90% in GT1a, 94.2% in GT1b and 91.6% in GT4 with no significant difference for genotype, treatment duration or ribavirin addition. Severity of liver disease was not associated with a lower SVR12 rate on multivariate analysis but was associated with a higher rate of severe side effects. Early treatment discontinuations were rare; no new safety signals were reported. CONCLUSION: In this real life, observational, prospective cohort study, the 12-week sofosbuvir/simeprevir+/-ribavirin combination appears to be efficient and safe. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01953458 .

Safety and immunogenicity of double-dose versus standard-dose hepatitis B revaccination in non-responding adults with HIV-1 (ANRS HB04 B-BOOST): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Revaccination with double-dose hepatitis B vaccine has been recommended in HIV-infected patients who do not respond to standard vaccination, but has not yet been assessed. We aimed to compare the safety and immunogenicity of a reinforced hepatitis B revaccination protocol with the standard revaccination schedule in HIV-infected patients not responding to primary vaccination. METHODS: We did this multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial, at 53 centres in France. HIV-infected adults (aged ≥18 years), with CD4 counts of 200 cells per µL or more and no response to a previous hepatitis B vaccination or a 20 µg booster dose, were randomly assigned (1:1), according to a computer-generated randomisation list with permuted blocks (block sizes of two to six), to receive either standard-dose (20 µg) or double-dose (40 µg) recombinant hepatitis B vaccine at weeks 0, 4, and 24. Randomisation was stratified by baseline CD4 count (200-349 vs ≥350 cells per µL). Patients and treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation, but the randomisation list was concealed from the investigators who assigned participants to the vaccination groups. The primary endpoint was the proportion of responders, defined as patients with hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) titres of 10 mIU/mL or more, at week 28. We did analysis by modified intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00670839. FINDINGS: Between May 19, 2008, and May 8, 2011, 178 participants were randomly assigned to the standard-dose group (n=90) or the double-dose group (n=88), of whom 176 (98%) participants were included in the primary efficacy analysis. At week 28, we recorded a response in 60 patients (67%, 95% CI 57-77) in the standard-dose group versus 64 patients (74%, 63-82) in the double-dose group (p=0·334). Except for more frequent local reactions in the double-dose group than the standard-dose group (13 [15%] vs four [4%] patients; p=0·020), there was no difference in safety between groups. INTERPRETATION: In adults with HIV-1 who have not responded to previous hepatitis B vaccination, double-dose revaccination did not achieve a higher response rate than did revaccination with standard single-dose regimen. However, the safety profile was similar between treatment groups. Our results should be assessed in future studies before double-dose vaccine can be considered for the standard of care of vaccine non-responders. FUNDING: French National Institute for Medical Research-French National Agency for Research on AIDS and Viral Hepatitis.

Evolution of direct costs in the first years of rheumatoid arthritis: impact of early versus late biologic initiation--an economic analysis based on the ESPOIR cohort.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate annual direct costs of early RA by resource component in an inception cohort, with reference to four distinct treatment strategies: no disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), synthetic DMARDs only, biologic DMARDs in the first year ('first-year biologic', FYB), and biologic DMARDs from the second year after inclusion ('later-year biologic', LYB); to determine predictors of total and non-DMARD related costs. METHODS: The ESPOIR cohort is a French multicentric, prospective study of 813 patients with early arthritis. Data assessing RA-related resource utilisation and disease characteristics were collected at baseline, biannually during the first two years and annually thereafter. Costs predictors were determined by generalised linear mixed analyses. RESULTS: Over the 4-year follow-up, mean annual direct total costs per treatment strategy group were €3,612 for all patients and €998, €1,922, €14,791, €8,477 respectively for no DMARDs, synthetic DMARDs only, FYB and LYB users. The main predictors of higher costs were biologic use and higher Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores at baseline. Being a biologic user led to a higher total cost (FYB Rate Ratio (RR) 7.22, [95% CI 5.59-9.31]; LYB RR 4.39, [95% CI 3.58-5.39]) compared to non-biologic users. Only LYB increased non-DMARD related costs compared to all other patients by 60%. CONCLUSIONS: FYB users incurred the highest levels of total costs, while their non-DMARD related costs remained similar to non-biologic users, possibly reflecting better RA control.

Cost of transcatheter aortic valve implantation and factors associated with higher hospital stay cost in patients of the FRANCE (FRench Aortic National CoreValve and Edwards) registry.

BACKGROUND: Currently, several anatomical approaches and intervention sites can be used to perform transcatheter aortic valve implantations (TAVIs), often with no clinical indications for choosing one or another. While these choices can have an impact on resource consumption, no costing study is available in the European context to provide information on resource use and assist decision-making. AIMS: To provide comparative data on the cost of the TAVI procedure, depending on anatomical approach and intervention site used, from a hospital perspective, and to analyze factors associated with cost of hospital stay. METHODS: Multicentre national registry data were collected in 16 centres between January and October 2009. For 287 patients, a descriptive costing study and a multivariable analysis of hospital stay cost were performed. RESULTS: The mean cost of the TAVI procedure was €22,876 and the mean initial hospital stay cost was €35,164. The procedure cost, excluding valve cost, did not differ between anatomical approaches and was highest in the hybrid room and lowest in the catheterization laboratory. Factors associated with higher hospital stay cost were transapical approach, Society of Thoracic Surgeons score>10%, warfarin use at inclusion, complications during procedure and pacemaker implantation following valve implantation. CONCLUSIONS: If clinical considerations do not interfere, hospital staff may find it economically favorable to opt for the catheterization laboratory and against the hybrid room. The mean hospital stay cost is higher than the tariff paid in 2011, a difference that has grown since the change in tariff in 2012, representing an economic disincentive for the uptake of TAVI in France.