Search

Abstract Background Eliminating hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections is a goal set by the World Health Organization. This has become possible with the introduction of highly effective and safe direct-acting antivirals (DAA) but limitations remain due to undiagnosed HCV infections and loss of patients from the cascade of care at various stages, including those lost to follow-up (LTFU) before the assessment of the effectiveness of the therapy. The aim of our study was to determine the extent of this loss and to establish the characteristics of patients experiencing it. Methods Patients with chronic HCV infection from the Polish retrospective multicenter EpiTer-2 database who were treated with DAA therapies between 2015 and 2023 were included in the study. Results In the study population of 18,968 patients, 106 had died by the end of the 12-week post-treatment follow-up period, and 509 patients did not report for evaluation of therapy effectiveness while alive and were considered LTFU. Among patients with available assessment of sustained virological response (SVR), the effectiveness of therapy was 97.5%. A significantly higher percentage of men (p

Abstract Background The evolution of SARS-CoV-2 has been observed from the very beginning of the fight against COVID-19, some mutations are indicators of potentially dangerous variants of the virus. However, there is no clear association between the genetic variants of SARS-CoV-2 and the severity of COVID-19. We aimed to analyze the genetic variability of RdRp in correlation with different courses of COVID-19. Results The prospective study included 77 samples of SARS-CoV-2 isolated from outpatients (1st degree of severity) and hospitalized patients (2nd, 3rd and 4th degree of severity). The retrospective analyses included 15,898,266 cases of SARS-CoV-2 genome sequences deposited in the GISAID repository. Single-nucleotide variants were identified based on the four sequenced amplified fragments of SARS-CoV-2. The analysis of the results was performed using appropriate statistical methods, with p T, 14697C > T, 15096 T > C, and 15279C > T), while the 15240C > T mutation was common among strains isolated from outpatients. The selected mutations were searched worldwide in the GISAID database, their presence was correlated with the severity of COVID-19. Conclusion Identified mutations have the potential to be used to assess the increased risk of hospitalization in COVID-19 positive patients. Experimental studies and extensive epidemiological data are needed to investigate the association between individual mutations and the severity of COVID-19.

Abstract Background According to the EASL and AASLD guidelines, the recommended treatment for patients who failed to achieve a sustained virologic response (SVR) on prior interferon-based triple therapy with protease inhibitors (PI), is a combination of sofosbuvir and NS5A inhibitors. Polish national recommendations also allow the use of paritaprevir/ritonavir/ombitasvir+dasasbuvir±ribavirin (PrODR) in this group of patients. The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PrODR vs. ledipasvir/sofosbuvir±RBV (LSR) in PI-experienced patients in real-life setting. Methods Our analysis included patients registered in the nationwide, investigators initiated, multicentre EpiTer-2 database. Among 4530 patients registered, 335 with genotype 1 (93% 1b) were previously treated with IFN-based regimens with PIs: 127 with boceprevir (BOC), 208 with telaprevir (TVR). Patients with advanced fibrosis (F3/F4) were significantly predominant (BOC 28.4%/61.4%, TVR 18.8%/64.4%, respectively). Subjects were assigned to IFN-free retreatment as follows: BOC - 64 (50.4%) PrODR and 63 (49.6%) LSR; TVR- 103 (49.5%) PrODR and 105 (50.5%) LSR. Results SVR rates were comparable for particular groups: BOC → PrODR- 100%; BOC → LSR - 98%; TVR → PrODR - 97%; TVR → LSR - 96% (intent-to treat analysis-ITT) and BOC → PrODR→100%; BOC → LSR - 99%; TVR → PrODR - 99%; TVR → LSR - 98% (modified intent-to treat analysis-mITT). Both treatment regimens had a favourable safety profile. Adverse events (AEs) were generally mild or moderate in severity. Three deaths were reported. The treatment was stopped due to AEs in five patients (three treated with PrODR and two with LSR). Conclusion Efficacy and safety of treatment with PrODR and LSR is comparable in BOC or TVR-experienced patients.