Search

Summary: Background: In England, choice of hepatitis C therapy is determined by national contracts that change with time, facilitating comparisons between different regimens. England has a diverse population with hepatitis C including large proportions of uncommon viral genotypes. Aim: To evaluate efficacy of directly acting anti‐viral treatments for hepatitis C in England using real‐world data from the national treatment registry. Methods: Sustained virological response (SVR) rates 12 weeks after treatment completion for patients treated between 2014 and August 2018 who attended for SVR tests were analysed in univariate subgroups using Chi‐squared tests. Multivariate models were constructed with clinically relevant variables to determine predictors of SVR and evaluate the impact of treatment regimens. Results: SVR data were available on 14,603 treated patients. The overall SVR rate was 95.59% [95% CI 95.25%‐95.91%]. Multivariable regression modelling in patients with genotype 1 infection showed that the odds of SVR with elbasvir/grazoprevir were higher than for those treated with sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (OR 1.891, 95% CI 1.072‐3.336, P = 0.028). For genotype 3, we found no significant difference between any of the treatment regimens. Patients who completed at least one third of the planned treatment duration achieved SVR rates in excess of 80%. Conclusions: All of the currently licensed hepatitis C direct‐acting anti‐viral regimens had similar efficacy (>95%) in an unselected population. Noncompletion of planned treatment duration still resulted in over 80% SVR rates provided that more than one third of treatment was completed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background & Aims Direct-acting antivirals have become widely used for patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection with decompensated cirrhosis. Virological responses are excellent and early improvements in liver function, at least in a proportion of patients, have been observed but the longer term impact of viral clearance on end-stage liver disease complications is unclear. Methods Prospective study of patients with decompensated cirrhosis who received 12 weeks of all-oral direct-acting antivirals through the English Expanded Access Programme. Endpoints were deaths, liver transplantation, hepatocellular carcinoma, serious decompensation events, sepsis or hospitalisations, and MELD scores between start of therapy to 15 months post-treatment start. An untreated cohort of patients was retrospectively studied over 6 months for comparison. Results Amongst 317/406 patients who achieved sustained virological response at 24 weeks post-treatment, there were 9 deaths (3%), 17 new liver cancers (5%), 39 transplantations (12%) and 52 with serious decompensations (16%), over 15 months. When compared to the first six months from treatment start and to untreated patients, there was a reduction in incidence of decompensations [30/406 (7%) in months 6–15 and 72/406 (18%) in months 0–6 for treated patients vs. 73/261 (28%) in untreated patients]. There was no significant difference in liver cancer incidence (10/406 (2.5%) in months 6–15 and 17/406 (4%) in months 0–6 for treated patients vs. 11/261 (4%) in untreated patients). Conclusions This study suggests that antiviral therapy in patients with decompensated cirrhosis led to prolonged improvement in liver function, with no evidence of paradoxical adverse impact nor increase in liver malignancy. Lay summary This is a report of a large group of patients in England who have hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection with advanced liver disease. They have been treated with new anti-HCV drugs, which cured the infection in the majority. This study looks at their outcomes a year following treatment, in terms of deaths, cancers and other complications of advanced liver disease. We conclude that in most patients anti-HCV treatment is beneficial even in advanced liver disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background & Aims All oral direct acting antivirals (DAAs) effectively treat chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, but the benefits in advanced liver disease are unclear. We compared outcomes in treated and untreated patients with decompensated cirrhosis. Methods Patients with HCV and decompensated cirrhosis or at risk of irreversible disease were treated in an expanded access programme (EAP) in 2014. Treatment, by clinician choice, was with sofosbuvir, ledipasvir or daclatasvir, with or without ribavirin. For functional outcome comparison, untreated patients with HCV and decompensated cirrhosis who were registered on a database 6 months before treatment was available were retrospectively studied. Primary endpoint was sustained virological response 12 weeks post antiviral treatment (treated cohort) and the secondary endpoint (both cohorts) was adverse outcomes (worsening in MELD score or serious adverse event) within 6 months. Results 467 patients received treatment (409 decompensated cirrhosis). Viral clearance was achieved in 381 patients (81.6%) – 209 from 231 (90.5%) with genotype 1 and 132 from 192 (68.8%) with genotype 3. MELD scores improved in treated patients (mean change −0.85) but worsened in untreated patients (mean + 0.75) ( p <0.0001). Patients with initial serum albumin <35 g/L, aged >65 or with low (<135 mmol/L) baseline serum sodium concentrations were least likely to benefit from therapy. Conclusions All oral DAAs effectively cured HCV in patients with advanced liver disease. Viral clearance was associated with improvement in liver function within 6 months compared to untreated patients. The longer term impact of HCV treatment in patients with decompensated cirrhosis remains to be determined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]