International Liver Transplantation Society Asian Consensus on the Management of Hepatitis C Virus Infection in Resource Limited Setting-From Noncirrhotic to Decompensated Disease and After Liver Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The population of Asia exceeds 4.4 billion people. Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in Asia is characterized by specific distribution of genotypes, lack of access to specific therapeutic agents, relatively high cost of treatment, and lack of experienced healthcare providers. Clear consensus on the diagnosis, management, and monitoring of HCV infection specific to the Asian region is a major unmet need. The consensus guidelines documents that have been published to date by major medical societies presume access to an array of direct acting antiviral agents and diagnostic tests that are not broadly applicable to resource limited settings, including Asia. METHODS: To address the lack of an Asia-specific set of HCV treatment guidelines, we assembled a panel of 15 HCV experts in the field of hepatology from India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Vietnam, Pakistan, Philippines, and Mongolia convened in April 2017 to review the updated literature and provide recommendations on the diagnosis and management of chronic HCV infection that reflects local conditions. RESULTS: An evidence-based comprehensive compilation of the literature supported by the graded recommendations from the expert panel for the optimization of the diagnosis, pretreatment, on treatment, and posttreatment assessments, and management of chronic HCV infection has been presented in this article. CONCLUSIONS: With the evolving treatment landscape and addition of several new direct-acting antiviral agents and combination regimens into the therapeutic armamentarium, the current article may serve as a guide to the clinicians in optimizing the diagnosis and treatment selection for the management of chronic HCV infection in resource-limited settings.

SIRveNIB: Selective Internal Radiation Therapy Versus Sorafenib in Asia-Pacific Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Purpose Selective internal radiation therapy or radioembolization (RE) shows efficacy in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) limited to the liver. This study compared the safety and efficacy of RE and sorafenib in patients with locally advanced HCC. Patients and Methods SIRveNIB (selective internal radiation therapy v sorafenib), an open-label, investigator-initiated, phase III trial, compared yttrium-90 (90Y) resin microspheres RE with sorafenib 800 mg/d in patients with locally advanced HCC in a two-tailed study designed for superiority/detriment. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 and stratified by center and presence of portal vein thrombosis. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Efficacy analyses were performed in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses in the treated population. Results A total of 360 patients were randomly assigned (RE, 182; sorafenib, 178) from 11 countries in the Asia-Pacific region. In the RE and sorafenib groups, 28.6% and 9.0%, respectively, failed to receive assigned therapy without significant cross-over to either group. Median OS was 8.8 and 10.0 months with RE and sorafenib, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.4; P = .36). A total of 1,468 treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were reported (RE, 437; sorafenib, 1,031). Significantly fewer patients in the RE than sorafenib group had grade ≥ 3 AEs (36 of 130 [27.7%]) v 82 of 162 [50.6%]; P < .001). The most common grade ≥ 3 AEs were ascites (five of 130 [3.8%] v four of 162 [2.5%] patients), abdominal pain (three [2.3%] v two [1.2%] patients), anemia (zero v four [2.5%] patients), and radiation hepatitis (two [1.5%] v zero [0%] patients). Fewer patients in the RE group (27 of 130 [20.8%]) than in the sorafenib group (57 of 162 [35.2%]) had serious AEs. Conclusion In patients with locally advanced HCC, OS did not differ significantly between RE and sorafenib. The improved toxicity profile of RE may inform treatment choice in selected patients.