Sofosbuvir-/Daclatasvir-based therapy for chronic HCV and HCV/hepatitis B virus coinfected patients in Egypt

Daclatasvir as a hepatitis C infection treatment option: an up-to-date evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Globally, it is estimated that 290,000 patients infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) died from hepatitis C consequences, including cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma in 2019. Although daclatasvir (DCV), combined with sofosbuvir (SOF), is effective in HCV patients, the new pan-genotypic combinations are considered by many as more cost-effective and successful in eradicating HCV infection.

AREAS COVERED

This review discusses the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of DCV as an HCV treatment option based on real-world studies and pharmacoeconomic evaluations.

EXPERT OPINION

Real-life studies suggest that SOF/DCV has acceptable sustained virological response and can be used successfully to manage HCV. Nonetheless, the use of SOF/DCV is limited by the longer treatment duration in genotype (GT)-3 patients and the need for ribavirin (RBV) in treatment-experienced patients which increases the likelihood of adverse effects. DCV is likely to remain as a therapeutic option for the management of GT-1, GT-2, and GT-4 patients in resource limited settings, while GT-3 patients are more likely to benefit from RBV-free direct-acting antiviral combinations such as SOF/velpatasvir for 12 weeks or glecaprevir/pibrentasvir for 8 weeks. The introduction of generics for these new pan-genotypic drugs would likely eliminate the need for SOF/DCV in the near future.

Micro-elimination of hepatitis C in patients with chronic kidney disease: an Egyptian single-center study

Background and aims

Micro-elimination of hepatitis C in renal patients is crucial. This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of directly acting antivirals in chronic kidney disease patients and the effect of treatment on kidney functions.

Results

This prospective cohort study included 77 chronic HCV-infected patients with chronic kidney disease. Patients were consented and treated for 12 weeks with either sofosbuvir and daclatasvir ± ribavirin if glomerular filtration rate was > 30 mL/min per 1.73m2 or ritonavir-boosted paritaprevir-ombitasvir-ribavirin if it was < 30 mL/min per 1.73m2. Patients were divided into two categories (responders versus non-responders). Predictors of response to treatment were statistically analyzed through logistic regression analysis. Sixty-two patients received ritonavir-boosted paritaprevir-ombitasvir-ribavirin, 3 received sofosbuvir and daclatasvir, and 12 received sofosbuvir and daclatasvir plus ribavirin. Most patients were on hemodialysis (n = 36) while 31 were stage 3 kidney disease. All patients completed their treatment course; ribavirin doses were adjusted or stopped in patients who developed anemia (40%). Seventy-two patients (93.5%) achieved sustained virological response 12 weeks following end-of-treatment. Five patients (6.5%) were non-responders, 4 of whom were on hemodialysis (p = 0.179). All non-responders were on ritonavir-boosted paritaprevir-ombitasvir-ribavirin. The mean serum creatinine level at weeks 4 and 8 of treatment demonstrated significant improvement compared to pretreatment values (p < 0.001) in patients on conservative therapy.

Conclusion

Treatment of chronic kidney disease patients for chronic hepatitis C with directly acting antivirals is safe, efficacious with high response rates and likely to improve renal functions if started early in the course of kidney disease.

Direct-Acting Antivirals and the Risk of Hepatitis B Reactivation in Hepatitis B and C Co-Infected Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Hepatitis B (HBV) reactivation was observed to be more than 10% in patients receiving interferon-based therapy for hepatitis C (HCV) co-infection. At present, when direct-acting antiviral (DAA) has become the main treatment for HCV, there are few large-scale studies on the reactivation of HBV in these population. We studied HBV reactivation risk and prophylactic HBV treatment efficacy in HBV/HCV co-infected patients receiving DAA therapy. Relevant studies were selected from the Ovid-Medline, Ovid-EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, KoreaMed, KMbase, and RISS databases through 4 September 2020. Data pooling was carried out using the random-effects method. We identified 39 articles with 119,484 patients with chronic (n = 1673) or resolved (n = 13,497) HBV infection under DAA therapy. When the studies were pooled, the HBV reactivation rate was 12% (95% confidence interval (CI) 6-19, I2 = 87%), indicating that this population needs careful attention. When stratified by baseline HBV DNA, the undetectable HBV DNA group showed a significantly lower risk of reactivation than the detectable HBV DNA group (odds ratio (OR) 0.30, 95% CI 0.11-0.86, I2 = 0%). Prophylactic HBV therapy reduced HBV reactivation risk (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07-0.92, I2 = 0%). Patients with a resolved HBV infection showed a negligible rate (0.4%) of HBV reactivation. In conclusion, patients with detectable HBV DNA levels warrant careful monitoring for HBV reactivation and may benefit from preventive anti-HBV treatment.

Hepatitis B Reactivation Following Eradication of HCV with Direct-Acting Antiviral Drugs (DAAs) in a Cohort of Patients from Different Institutions in Egypt

Background

Concerns about HBV reactivation (HBVr) have been raised with the introduction of DAA for HCV treatment. The aim of the study was to assess the risk of HBVr in chronic HCV patients during or after DAA.

Methods

A cohort of 166 chronic HCV patients who were treated with SOF-based DAA regimens and initially positive for HBcAb total were evaluated; 10 HBsAg-positive, 156 had past HBV exposure (HBsAg-negative/HBcAb-positive). Laboratory investigations, including liver functions tests, HBV-DNA, LSM by Transient elastography, and ARFI together with serum markers of fibrosis; APRI and FIB-4 were done at baseline and after 12 weeks of DAAs therapy. HBV-DNA levels and liver functions were monitored for assessment of HBVr.

Results

Virological HBVr was diagnosed by ≥ 1 log10 IU/ml HBV-DNA levels in 2/166 patients (1.2%) among the whole HCV cohort, who were initially positive for HBsAg; 20%. Clinical HBVr (>3 folds liver enzyme elevation) was detected in one patient with virological HBVr. Conversely, none of past HBV-infected patients experienced HBVr. All patients achieved SVR12 and had a significant decline in serum transaminases, bilirubin, APRI, and LSM measurements after HCV eradication.

Conclusion

HBVr might be considered after successful eradication of HCV following DAAs therapy, especially among patients who are positive for HBsAg, while past HBV infection does not seem to be a predisposing condition to HBVr.

Effectiveness of hepatitis B vaccination in chronic HCV patients after successful generic direct acting antiviral therapy: significance of isolated hepatitis B core antibodies

OBJECTIVE

Previous reports show conflicting results regarding hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccine efficacy in Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infected individuals and in those with isolated hepatitis B core antibodies (HBcAb). We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of HBV vaccine and identify possible factors that may contribute to hyporesponsivness in HCV-treated patients, including those with isolated HBcAb.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study with 118 enrolled chronic HCV patients who followed a 12-week regimen of direct acting antivirals (DAAs) and were evaluated for HBV serological markers. Eventually, 98 received appropriate HBV vaccination and were assessed for response.

RESULTS

A total of 57.1% were vaccine responders although only 5.1% achieved a seroprotective level of HBsAb titre. The response rate was significantly lower among treated HCV patients with isolated HBcAb [2 (5.6%) vs. 40 (64.5%) respectively]. On multivariate analysis, advanced age [OR (95% CI) = 1.09 (1.02-1.17)] and presence of isolated HbcAb [OR (95% CI) = 39.59 (7.98-196.63)] were predictors of vaccine non-response. In our cost-effectiveness models, the cost of HBV serological screening was less than the nationally adopted non-screening approach. A model ratifying reinforced vaccination in non-responder HBcAb seropositive HCV patients would incur extra cost.

CONCLUSION

Hyporesponsiveness to the HBV vaccination is frequent in chronic HCV patients even after achieving SVR following DAAs. Although there is no consensus on the clinical management of patients with isolated HBcAb, our cost-effectiveness options may support decision-making for better clinical benefit and proper health investments.