Sofosbuvir and Velpatasvir combination is safe and effective in treating chronic hepatitis C in end-stage renal disease on maintenance haemodialysis

Recompensation of Chronic Hepatitis C-Related Decompensated Cirrhosis Following Direct-Acting Antiviral Therapy: Prospective Cohort Study From a Hepatitis C Virus Elimination Program

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Chronic hepatitis C-related decompensated cirrhosis is associated with lower sustained virologic response (SVR)-12 rates and variable regression of disease severity after direct-acting antiviral agents. We assessed rates of SVR-12, recompensation (Baveno VII criteria), and survival in such patients.

METHODS

Between July 2018 and July 2023, patients with decompensated chronic hepatitis C-related cirrhosis after direct-acting antiviral agents treatment were evaluated for SVR-12 and then had 6-monthly follow-up.

RESULTS

Of 6516 patients with cirrhosis, 1152 with decompensated cirrhosis (age 53.2 ± 11.5 years; 63% men; Model for End-stage Liver Disease-Sodium [MELD-Na]: 16.5 ± 4.6; 87% genotype 3) were enrolled. SVR-12 was 81.8% after 1 course; ultimately SVR was 90.8% after additional treatment. Decompensation events included ascites (1098; 95.3%), hepatic encephalopathy (191; 16.6%), and variceal bleeding (284; 24.7%). Ascites resolved in 86% (diuretic withdrawal achieved in 24% patients). Recompensation occurred in 284 (24.7%) at a median time of 16.5 (interquartile range, 14.5-20.5) months. On multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis, low bilirubin (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5-0.8; P < 0.001), international normalized ratio (aHR, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.1-0.3; P < 0.001), absence of large esophageal varices (aHR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.9; P = 0.048), or gastric varices (aHR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7; P = 0.022) predicted recompensation. Portal hypertension progressed in 158 (13.7%) patients, with rebleed in 4%. Prior decompensation with variceal bleeding (aHR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.8; P = 0.042), and presence of large varices (aHR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.3-6.5; P < 0.001) were associated with portal hypertension progression. Further decompensation was seen in 221 (19%); 145 patients died and 6 underwent liver transplantation. A decrease in MELDNa of ≥3 was seen in 409 (35.5%) and a final MELDNa score of <10 was seen in 335 (29%), but 2.9% developed hepatocellular carcinoma despite SVR-12.

CONCLUSIONS

SVR-12 in hepatitis C virus-related decompensated cirrhosis in a predominant genotype 3 population led to recompensation in 24.7% of patients over a follow-up of 4 years in a public health setting. Despite SVR-12, new hepatic decompensation evolved in 19% and hepatocellular carcinoma developed in 2.9% of patients. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT03488485).

Management of dialysis patients with hepatitis C virus in the era of direct-acting antiviral therapy

The clinical use of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection has dramatically changed management of patients with HCV liver disease since 2014; this is also true for patients undergoing dialysis. Due to the high tolerability and antiviral efficacy of anti-HCV therapy, most dialysis patients with HCV infection should currently be candidates for this treatment. Many patients with HCV antibodies no longer have HCV infection, and it is difficult to identify patients with actual HCV infection based only on HCV antibody assays. Despite the high rate of successful HCV eradication, the risk of liver-related events such as hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the major complication of HCV infection, persists even after HCV cure, and patients at risk of HCC should undergo continuous HCC surveillance. Finally, the rarity of HCV reinfection and the survival benefit of HCV eradication in dialysis patients should be explored in further studies.

The efficacy and safety of direct-acting antiviral regimens for end-stage renal disease patients with HCV infection: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is an independent risk factor associated with adverse outcomes in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Due to the wide variety of direct-acting antiviral regimens (DAAs) and the factor of renal insufficiency, careless selection of anti-hepatitis C treatment can lead to treatment failure and safety problems. The integrated evidence for optimized therapies for these patients is lacking. This study would conduct comparisons of different DAAs and facilitate clinical decision-making.

Methods

We conducted a systematic literature search in multiple databases (PubMed, Ovid, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) up to 7 August 2023. Study data that contained patient characteristics, study design, treatment regimens, intention-to-treat sustained virologic response (SVR), and adverse event (AE) data per regimen were extracted into a structured electronic database and analyzed. The network meta-analysis of the estimation was performed by the Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods.

Results

Our search identified 5,278 articles; removing the studies with duplicates and ineligible criteria, a total of 62 studies (comprising 4,554 patients) were included. Overall, the analyses contained more than 2,489 male individuals, at least 202 patients with cirrhosis, and no less than 2,377 patients under hemodialysis. Network meta-analyses of the DAAs found that receiving ombitasvir (OBV)/paritaprevir (PTV)/ritonavir (R) plus dasabuvir (DSV), glecaprevir (G)/pibrentasvir (P), and sofosbuvir (SOF)/ledipasvir (LDV) ranked as the top three efficacy factors for the HCV-infected ESRD patients. Stratified by genotype, the G/P would prioritize genotype 1 and 2 patients with 98.9%-100% SVR, the SOF/DCV regimen had the greatest SVR rates (98.7%; 95% CI, 93.0%-100.0%) in genotype 3, and the OBV/PTV/R regimen was the best choice for genotype 4, with the highest SVR of 98.1% (95% CI, 94.4%-99.9%). In the pan-genotypic DAAs comparison, the G/P regimen showed the best pooled SVR of 99.4% (95% CI, 98.6%-100%). DAA regimens without Ribavirin or SOF showed the lowest rates of AEs (49.9%; 95% CI, 38.4%-61.5%) in HCV-infected ESRD patients.

Conclusion

The G/P could be recommended as the best option for the treatment of pan-genotypic HCV-infected ESRD patients. The OBV/PTV/R plus DSV, SOF/Velpatasvir (VEL), SOF/Ledipasvir (LDV), and SOF/DCV would be reliable alternatives for HCV treatment with comparable efficacy and safety profiles.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#searchadvanced, PROSPERO: CRD42021242359.

A Systematic Review of Direct-Acting Antivirals for Hepatitis C in Advanced CKD

Introduction

Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) have improved treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). To facilitate the 2022 update of the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guideline for CKD patients with HCV, we systematically reviewed DAA regimens in patients with CKD stages G4 and G5 nondialysis (G4-G5ND), CKD stage G5 on dialysis (G5D), and kidney transplant recipients (KTRs).

Methods

We conducted a systematic review by searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov through February 1, 2022, and conferences from 2019 to 2021. Studies of HCV-infected patients with CKD G4-G5ND, G5D, and KTRs treated with specified DAA regimens were included. Outcomes included death at 6 months or later, sustained virologic response at 12 weeks (SVR12), serious adverse events (SAEs) attributed to DAA, and treatment discontinuation because of adverse events. Maximum likelihood meta-analyses were determined; certainty of evidence was assessed per GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation).

Results

We identified 106 eligible studies (22 reported on CKD G4-G5ND, 69 on CKD G5D, and 29 on KTRs). In each population, the majority of DAA regimens achieved SVR12 ≥ 93%. We found generally low quality of evidence of low risk of SAEs (mostly 0%, up to 2.9%) and low risk of discontinuation because of adverse events (mostly 0%-5%). Across 3 unadjusted observational studies in KTRs, the risk of death after DAA treatment was substantially lower than without treatment (summary odds ratio, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.61).

Conclusion

Combination DAA regimens are safe and highly effective in patients with advanced CKD, on dialysis, and with kidney transplants.

Recent Information on Pan-Genotypic Direct-Acting Antiviral Agents for HCV in Chronic Kidney Disease

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is still common in patients with chronic kidney disease. It has been recently discovered that chronic HCV is a risk factor for increased incidence of CKD in the adult general population. According to a systematic review with a meta-analysis of clinical studies, pooling results of longitudinal studies (n = 2,299,134 unique patients) demonstrated an association between positive anti-HCV serologic status and increased incidence of CKD; the summary estimate for adjusted HR across the surveys was 1.54 (95% CI, 1.26; 1.87), (p < 0.0001). The introduction of direct-acting antiviral drugs (DAAs) has caused a paradigm shift in the management of HCV infection; recent guidelines recommend pan-genotypic drugs (i.e., drugs effective on all HCV genotypes) as the first-choice therapy for HCV, and these promise to be effective and safe even in the context of chronic kidney disease.

AIM

The purpose of this narrative review is to show the most important data on pan-genotypic DAAs in advanced CKD (CKD stage 4/5).

METHODS

We recruited studies by electronic databases and grey literature. Numerous key-words ('Hepatitis C' AND 'Chronic kidney disease' AND 'Pan-genotypic agents', among others) were adopted.

RESULTS

The most important pan-genotypic combinations for HCV in advanced CKD are glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB) and sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL). Two clinical trials (EXPEDITION-4 and EXPEDITION-5) and some 'real-world' studies (n = 6) reported that GLE/PIB combinations in CKD stage 4/5 gave SVR12 rates ranging between 86 and 99%. We retrieved clinical trials (n = 1) and 'real life' studies (n = 6) showing the performance of SOF/VEL; according to our pooled analysis, the summary estimate of SVR rate was 100% in studies adopting SOF/VEL antiviral combinations. The drop-out rate (due to AEs) in patients on SOF/VEL ranged between 0 and 4.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Pan-genotypic combinations, such as GLE/PIB and SOF/VEL, appear effective and safe for HCV in advanced CKD, even if a limited number of studies with small sample sizes currently exist on this issue. Studies are under way to assess whether successful antiviral therapy with DAAs will translate into better survival in patients with advanced CKD.

Pan-genotypic direct-acting antivirals for patients with hepatitis C virus infection and chronic kidney disease stage 4 or 5

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a major health problem with significant clinical and economic burdens in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 4 or 5. Current guidelines recommend pan-genotypic direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) to be the first-line treatment of choice for HCV. This review summarizes the updated knowledge regarding the epidemiology, natural history, public health perspectives of HCV in patients with CKD stage 4 or 5, including those on maintenance dialysis, and the performance of pan-genotypic DAAs in these patients. The prevalence and incidence of HCV are much higher in patients with CKD stage 4 or 5 than in the general population. The prognosis is compromised if HCV patients are left untreated regardless of kidney transplantation (KT). Following treatment-induced HCV eradication, patient can improve the health-related outcomes by maintaining a long-term aviremic state. The sustained virologic response (SVR12) rates and safety profiles of pan-genotypic DAAs against HCV are excellent irrespective of KT. No dose adjustment of pan-genotypic DAAs is required across CKD stages. Assessing drug-drug interactions (DDIs) before HCV treatment is vital to secure on-treatment safety. The use of prophylactic or preemptive pan-genotypic DAAs in HCV-negative recipients who receive HCV-positive kidneys has shown promise in shortening KT waiting time, achieving excellent on-treatment efficacy and safety, and maintaining post-KT patient and graft survival. HCV elimination is highly feasible through multifaceted interventions, including mass screening, treatment scale-up, universal precautions, and post-SVR12 reinfection surveillance.

Editorial: clinical impact of sofosbuvir renal toxicity-more light on the way

This article is linked to Sulkowski et al papers. To view these articles, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.16830

The curing regimens of HCV: A SWOT analysis

The development of direct-acting antivirals (DAA) has revolutionized the treatment of chronic hepatitis C, enabling cure of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in more than 95% of cases. There are essentially no contraindications, so almost any patient can now be successfully treated. The result is the prevention or amelioration of cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and extrahepatic manifestations. Consequently, the 2020 Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology was awarded for the discovery of HCV. Due to the high efficacy of therapy, even global HCV elimination is conceivable even without a vaccine. Here, we would like to venture a SWOT analysis of current HCV therapies aimed at HCV elimination.

Sofosbuvir/velpatasvir with or without low-dose ribavirin for patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection and severe renal impairment

OBJECTIVE

Data regarding the real-world effectiveness and safety of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL) with or without low-dose ribavirin (RBV) in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and severe renal impairment (RI) are limited. We evaluated the performance of SOF/VEL with or without low-dose RBV in HCV-infected patients with chronic kidney disease stage 4 or 5.

DESIGN

191 patients with compensated (n=181) and decompensated (n=10) liver diseases receiving SOF/VEL (400/100 mg/day) alone and SOF/VEL with low-dose RBV (200 mg/day) for 12 weeks were retrospectively recruited at 15 academic centres in Taiwan. The effectiveness was determined by sustained virological response at off-treatment week 12 (SVR₁₂) in evaluable (EP) and per-protocol populations (PP). The safety profiles were assessed.

RESULTS

The SVR₁₂ rates by EP and PP analyses were 94.8% (95% CI 90.6% to 97.1%) and 100% (95% CI 97.9% to 100%). In patients with compensated liver disease, the SVR₁₂ rates were 95.0% and 100% by EP and PP analyses. In patients with decompensated liver disease, the SVR₁₂ rates were 90.0% and 100% by EP and PP analyses. Ten patients who failed to achieve SVR₁₂ were attributed to non-virological failures. Among the 20 serious adverse events (AEs), none were judged related to SOF/VEL or RBV. The AEs occurring in ≥10% included fatigue (14.7%), headache (14.1%), nausea (12.6%), insomnia (12.0%) and pruritus (10.5%). None had ≥grade 3 total bilirubin or alanine aminotransferase elevations.

CONCLUSION

SOF/VEL with or without low-dose RBV is effective and well-tolerated in HCV-infected patients with severe RI.

An Updated View on the Antiviral Therapy of Hepatitis C in Chronic Kidney Disease

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C virus infection remains common in patients with chronic kidney disease, including those on maintenance dialysis. The relationship between hepatitis C virus infection and chronic kidney disease is bi-directional; in fact, HCV is both a cause and consequence of chronic kidney disease. According to a systematic review with meta-analysis of observational studies (n = 23 studies) (n = 574,081 patients on long-term dialysis), anti-HCV positive serologic status was an independent and significant risk factor for death in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease on long-term dialysis. The overall estimate for adjusted mortality (all-cause death risk) with HCV was 1.26 (95% CI, 1.18; 1.34) (p < 0.0001). Interferon-based therapies are biased by low efficacy/safety in chronic kidney disease, but the advent of direct-acting antiviral drugs has made a paradigm shift in the treatment of HCV-infection. These medications give interruption of viral replication because they target specific non-structural viral proteins; four classes of DAAs exist-NS3/4A protease inhibitors, NS5A inhibitors, NS5B nucleoside and non-nucleoside polymerase inhibitors. All-oral, interferon-free, ribavirin-free combinations of DAAs are now available.

AIM

The goal of this narrative review is to report the available treatment options for HCV in advanced chronic kidney disease.

METHODS

We have made an extensive review of the medical literature and various research engines have been adopted.

RESULTS

Some combinations of DAAs are currently recommended for HCV in advanced CKD (including patients on maintenance dialysis): elbasvir/grazoprevir; glecaprevir/pibrentasvir; and sofosbuvir-based regimens. Solid evidence, based on registration and "real life" studies supports their efficacy (SVR rates > 90%) and safety even in patients with advanced CKD. No dosage adjustment is necessary and treatment duration is 8-12 weeks. However, recent data highlight that many patients with advanced CKD remain untreated, and numerous barriers to antiviral treatment of HCV still exist. Whether successful antiviral therapy with DAAs will translate into improved survival in the advanced CKD population is another point of future research.

Sofosbuvir/velpatasvir for the treatment of hepatitis C in pediatric patients

Introduction: Sofosbuvir/velpatasvir is a combination of direct-acting antivirals with pangenotypic activity for treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus infection. It was approved in 2020 for use in children aged 6-17 years and in June 2021 by the United States Food and Drug Administration for the age group 3-5 years.Areas covered: A literature search of PUBMED and EMBASE was conducted on April 30th and updated on June 10th. Other citations were identified in references of available literature and from ClinicalTrials.gov. The aim of the present research was to outline and discuss the pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, tolerability and safety of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir, exploring its actual and potential use in children and adolescents with chronic hepatitis C virus infection.Expert opinion: Five combinations of direct-acting antivirals, of whom three with pangenotypic activity, are now approved for children. No major differences in efficacy and safety profile have been described. Limited access to treatment still is a major issue, especially in low and middle-income countries.

Sofosbuvir plus velpatasvir combination for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C in patients with end stage renal disease on renal replacement therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Sofosbuvir (SOF) and velpatasvir (VEL) is a pan-genotypic regimen for the treatment of Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. The data on the efficacy and safety of this regimen is end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is scanty. This systematic review and meta-analysis was done to ascertain the efficacy and safety of SOF and VEL in patients with chronic Hepatitis C (CHC) and ESRD on renal replacement therapy (RRT).

METHODS

Systematic search of Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar was conducted using the search term (end-stage renal disease OR renal replacement therapy OR chronic kidney failure OR severe renal impairment OR chronic kidney disease OR haemodialysis OR dialysis OR peritoneal dialysis) AND (sofosbuvir OR velpatasvir OR NS5A inhibitors OR directly acting antivirals). Pooled sustained virologic response (SVR) and adverse event rates with 95% confidence intervals were estimated.

RESULTS

Seven studies (410 patients with CHC and ESRD on RRT) fulfilled our eligibility criteria. The overall pooled SVR rate of SOF and VEL in patients with HCV on RRT was 97.69% (95% CI: 95.71 to 98.92). There was no significant heterogeneity (I² : 39.3%, p-value of Cochran's Q = 0.13) among the studies. The pooled estimate of efficacy of SOF-VEL combination among patients with cirrhosis was 91.94% (95% CI 77.03-98.52). Pooled SVR rates in genotype 3 infection [94.6%, (95%: CI 81.3-99.4)] was comparable to that in those with documented non-genotype 3 infection [94.63%, (95% CI 87.12-98.44)]. No serious adverse event attributable to SOF and VEL was reported in the included studies.

CONCLUSION

The fixed-dose combination of SOF and VEL is effective and safe in CHC patients with ESRD on RRT.

Viral hepatitis: Milestones, unresolved issues, and future goals

In this review the current overall knowledge on hepatitis A, B, C, D, and E will be discussed. These diseases are all characterized by liver inflammation but have significant differences in distribution, transmission routes, and outcomes. Hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus are transmitted by exposure to infected blood, and in addition to acute infection, they can cause chronic hepatitis, which in turn can evolve into cirrhosis. It is estimated that more than 300 million people suffer from chronic hepatitis B or C worldwide. Hepatitis D virus, which is also transmitted by blood, only affects hepatitis B virus infected people, and this dual infection results in worse liver-related outcomes. Hepatitis A and E spread via the fecal-oral route, which corresponds mainly to the ingestion of food or water contaminated with infected stools. However, in developed countries hepatitis E is predominantly a zoonosis. Although hepatitis A virus and hepatitis E virus are usually responsible for a self-limiting hepatitis, a serious, rarely fatal illness is also possible, and in immunosuppressed patients, such as organ transplant recipients, hepatitis E virus infection can become chronic. The description of goals achieved, unresolved issues, and the latest research on this topic may make it possible to speculate on future scenarios in the world of viral hepatitis.

Management and Treatment of Hepatitis C: Are There Still Unsolved Problems and Unique Populations?

Direct-acting antivirals (DAA) have revolutionized the treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, possibly leading to HCV elimination by 2030 as endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO). However, some patients belonging to the so-called unique or special populations are referred to as difficult-to-treat due to unreached sustained virological response, potential drug side effects or interactions or co-morbidities. Several years after the DAA introduction and on the basis of excellent findings in terms of efficacy and safety, some doubts arise around the exact meaning of the special population designation and whether this group of patients actually exists. The aim of this review is to discuss and analyze current evidence on the management and treatment of the so-called "unique populations". We placed particular emphasis on patients with decompensated cirrhosis, chronic kidney disease (CKD), coinfections, rare genotypes, and previous treatment failure, in order to provide physicians with an updated overview of the actual problems and needs in the current scenario.