Sofosbuvir in combination with daclatasvir in liver transplant recipients with HCV infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Sofosbuvir-based antiviral therapy in patients with recurrent HCV infection after liver transplant: A real-life experience

INTRODUCTION AND AIM

Recurrent HCV infection after liver transplant (LT) has a negative impact on graft and patient survival. The aim of this study is to describe the efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir (SOF-based) regimens in the treatment of recurrent HCV after liver transplant (LT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 68 adults with recurrent HCV infection after LT, treated with different SOF-based regimens between March 2015 and December 2016. The choice of regimens, their duration and use of ribavirin (RBV) was made by the treating physician. The efficacy of antiviral treatment was assessed based on the sustained viral response obtained 12 weeks after the end of treatment (SVR12), according to an intention-to-treat analysis.

RESULTS

The most frequent HCV genotypes were 1 and 3 (n=35, 51.4% and n=31, 45.6%, respectively). Only 22 patients were treatment naïve (32.3%) and 7 had cirrhosis (10.2%). SOF+daclatasvir (DCV) was the most commonly used regimen (n=63, 92.6%). Most patients used RBV (n=56, 82.3%) and were treated for 12 weeks (n=66, 97%). Overall SVR12 was 95.5% (65/68 patients). Three patients had virologic failure. Three patients had serious adverse events, however, no one discontinued treatment prematurely. RBV-related anaemia was the most frequent adverse event (n=34, 50%). Four patients had severe cellular graft rejection after HCV elimination, while immunosuppression remained stable.

CONCLUSION

SOF-based therapy is highly effective and safe to treat HCV recurrence after LT. Cellular graft rejection following the successful treatment of HCV needs further investigation.

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.

Consensus on management of hepatitis C virus infection in resource-limited Ukraine and Commonwealth of Independent States regions

Globally, 69.6 million individuals were infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in 2016. Of the six major HCV genotypes (GT), the most predominant one is GT1, worldwide. The prevalence of HCV in Central Asia, which includes most of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), has been estimated to be 5.8% of the total global burden. The predominant genotype in the CIS and Ukraine regions has been reported to be GT1, followed by GT3. Inadequate HCV epidemiological data, multiple socio-economic barriers, and the lack of region-specific guidelines have impeded the optimal management of HCV infection in this region. In this regard, a panel of regional experts in the field of hepatology convened to discuss and provide recommendations on the diagnosis, treatment, and pre-, on-, and posttreatment assessment of chronic HCV infection and to ensure the optimal use of cost-effective antiviral regimens in the region. A comprehensive evaluation of the literature along with expert recommendations for the management of GT1-GT6 HCV infection with the antiviral agents available in the region has been provided in this review. This consensus document will help guide clinical decision-making during the management of HCV infection, further optimizing treatment outcomes in these regions.

A systematic review with meta-analysis: Is ribavirin necessary in sofosbuvir-based direct-acting antiviral therapies for patients with HCV recurrence after liver transplantation?

OBJECTIVES

With the appearance of direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs), sofosbuvir (SOF)-based DAAs are recommended for patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) recurrence after liver transplantation (LT). Whether ribavirin (RBV) is needed by patients after LT in combination with SOF-based DAAs remains to be determined. This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the necessity of RBV with SOF-based DAAs for post-LT patients.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and EMBASE databases were systematically searched for eligible studies from the databases' inceptions until November 2018. We accepted the studies that included HCV recurrence in post-LT patients who were treated with SOF-based DAAs ± RBV, and evaluated the rate of sustained virological response 12 weeks (SVR12) after the end of treatment.

RESULTS

Twelve studies, comprising a total of 1466 LT recipients, were included in this study. The pooled SVR12 of these patients was 91% (95% CI: 84% to 95%). There was no statistical difference of SVR12 in the patients treated with SOF-based DAAs + RBV versus -RBV group (risk ratio [RR] = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.03; P = 0.35) by different therapy duration (P = 0.26), with different targets of DAAs (P = 0.13) and in different regions (P = 0.34) but a tendency for a higher incidence of anemia in the +RBV group than in the -RBV group (RR = 5.18; 95% CI: 3.41 to 7.86; p < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

The addition of RBV may not contribute to a higher SVR rate and could increase the incidence of anemia, so RBV is not necessary in SOF-based DAAs for patients with HCV recurrence after LT.

Safety and efficacy of combined sofosbuvir/daclatasvir treatment of children and adolescents with chronic hepatitis C Genotype 4

Direct-acting antivirals have become available for treating chronic HCV (hepatitis C virus) infection in adults and, recently, in children at least 12 years old. Our aim was to investigate the safety and efficacy of combined sofosbuvir (SOF)/daclatasvir (DCV) for HCV Genotype 4 in children aged 8 to 18 years or weighing 17 kg or more. A total of 40 chronic HCV-infected, treatment-naïve children with well compensated livers were recruited from two sites. Patients received combined therapy of SOF (400 mg/d for patients weighing greater than 45 kg; 200 mg/d for patients weighing 17 to 45 kg) and DCV (60 mg/d for patients weighing greater than 45 kg; 30 mg/d for patients weighing 17 to 45 kg) for 12 weeks. They were followed up regularly by clinical examination and laboratory tests during treatment (weekly in the first month then monthly to the end of treatment), every 3 months for 6 months post-treatment, and at 48 weeks post-treatment. In our cohort, which included 45% of children below the age of 12 years (72.5% genotype 4 and 27.5% mixed genotype 4 and 1), end of treatment response (ETR) was 97.5%. Sustained virologic response for weeks 12 and 24 post-treatment (SVR12 and SVR24) were 97.5% and 95%, respectively, on an intention to treat basis, and 100% and 100% for those who completed the study protocol. Observed side effects were mild and none required drug cessation. Combined SOF/DCV was found to be effective and safe for treating HCV Genotype 4-infected children, 8 years of age and above.

Changes in practice and perception of hepatitis C and liver transplantation: Results of a national survey

With new practice guidelines, it is important to understand how liver transplant (LT) centers have incorporated direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) into the management of hepatitis C virus-infected (HCV+) candidates and recipients. To explore how DAAs have affected LT centers' willingness to treat HCV+ candidates and recipients and to use HCV+ donors, we surveyed high volume US LT centers (11/2014-12/2015) regarding practices for HCV+ candidates, recipients, and donors, before vs after DAAs. We used the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients to compare centers' number of LTs, HCV+ recipients, and HCV+ donors in the years before (1/1/2012-12/31/2013) and after (1/1/2016-12/31/2017) survey administration. Of 80 centers contacted, 57 (71.3%) responded, representing 69.0% of the total volume of LTs in 2013. After DAAs, most centers increased treating candidates with low (≤15) model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) (85.2%), intermediate/high (>15) MELD (92.6%), and hepatocellular carcinoma (79.6%). There was consensus to treat low MELD candidates (90.8% "most of the time/always"), but less certainty for intermediate/high MELD candidates (48.2% "sometimes"). Universal post-LT HCV treatment increased (7.4% vs 57.4%). After DAAs, 42.6% were more willing to use HCV+ donors for HCV+ candidates, and 38.9% were willing to consider using HCV+ donors for HCV- candidates. Overall, with DAAs, centers were more willing to treat HCV+ candidates and recipients and to use HCV+ donors; recent recommendations may help to guide treatment decisions for intermediate/high MELD candidates.