Efficacy and safety of simeprevir and sofosbuvir with and without ribavirin in subjects with recurrent genotype 1 hepatitis C postorthotopic liver transplant: the randomized GALAXY study

Safety and efficacy of sofosbuvir-based medication regimens with and without ribavirin in hepatitis C patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Sofosbuvir (SOF) is a new and highly effective medication that dramatically improved hepatitis C virus (HCV) management. However, ribavirin (RBV) is still added to SOF-based medication regimens in several clinical scenarios, despite its well-known toxicities. The aim of our study is to systematically review and analyse the impact of adding RBV to SOF-based medication regimens on clinical outcomes among HCV patients.

METHODS

Included studies were randomized trials comparing the same SOF-based medication regimens with and without RBV in HCV patients and measuring serious adverse events (SAEs) and/or sustained virologic response at 12 weeks post-treatment (SVR-12). Two investigators independently searched PubMed and Cochrane Library through September 2021. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess trials quality. Clinical outcomes were analysed as risk ratios (RR) using a random effects model using R version 4.1.2.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Our study included a total of 26 trials with 5058 HCV patients. Quality assessment showed moderate risk of bias for most trials. Upon adding RBV, there was no significant difference in SAEs (RR 1.07, 95% CI: 0.77-1.48, I²  = 10%), nor an impact on SVR-12 (RR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.98-1.01, I²  = 41%). There was no evidence of publication bias for either outcome. Subgroup analysis consistently showed lack of benefit among HCV subgroups. Additionally, NCT01826981 was identified as the main source of heterogeneity in the SVR-12 outcome.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest nonsignificant differences in safety and efficacy between SOF-based medication regimens with and without RBV which should be considered in clinical practice.

Solid organ transplantation of viral hepatitis C positive donor organs into viral hepatitis C negative recipients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Strategies are needed to reduce waitlist mortality and increase transplantation rates. Advances in hepatitis C therapy has allowed the transplant community to look toward utilization of grafts from hepatitis C viremic donors to expand the organ pool. Use of such grafts for hepatitis C-negative patients is being evaluated and debated, and early trial data are emerging.

RECENT FINDINGS

Both hepatitis C antibody-positive/nucleic acid test-negative and viremic donors are currently underutilized. Outcomes for viral hepatitis C (HCV) viremic transplant recipients are improving in the setting of direct-acting antiviral therapy. Optimization of graft utilization from HCV 'positive' donors and expansion to use of viremic donors for HCV-negative recipients will likely reduce waitlist mortality and result in net overall reduction in healthcare expenditures.

SUMMARY

Herein, we provide a review of recent advancements relating to hepatitis C in solid organ transplant and outline future directions. A primary future focus will be data collection of outcomes of transplantation of grafts from HCV 'viremic' donors to nonviremic recipients in formal clinical trial protocols.

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.

Direct-acting antiviral agents for liver transplant recipients with recurrent genotype 1 hepatitis C virus infection: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Comprehensive evaluation of safety and efficacy of different combinations of direct‐acting antivirals (DAAs) in liver transplant recipients with genotype 1 (GT1) hepatitis C virus (HCV) recurrence remains limited. Therefore, we performed this systematic review and meta‐analysis in order to evaluate the clinical outcome of DAA treatment in liver transplant patients with HCV GT1 recurrence.

Methods

Studies were included if they contained information of 12 weeks sustained virologic response (SVR12) after DAA treatment completion as well as treatment related complications for liver transplant recipients with GT1 HCV recurrence.

Results

We identified 16 studies comprising 885 patients. The overall pooled estimate proportion of SVR12 was 93% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89, 0.96), with moderate heterogeneity observed (τ² = 0.01, P < 0.01, I²=75%). High tolerability was observed in liver transplant recipients reflected by serious adverse events (sAEs) with pooled estimate proportion of 4% (95% CI: 0.01, 0.07; τ² = 0.02, P < 0.01, I² = 81%). For subgroup analysis, a total of five different DAA regimens were applied for treating these patients. Sofosbuvir/Ledipasvir (SOF/LDV) led the highest pooled estimate SVR12 proportion, followed by Paritaprevir/Ritonavir/Ombitasivir/Dasabuvir (PrOD), Daclatasvir (DCV)/Simeprevir (SMV) ± Ribavirin (RBV), and SOF/SMV ± RBV, Asunaprevir (ASV)/DCV. There was a tendency for favoring a higher pooled SVR12 proportion in patients with METAVIR Stage F0‐F2 of 97% (95% CI: 0.93, 0.99) compared to 85% (95% CI: 0.79, 0.90) for stage F3‐F4 (P < 0.01). There was no significant difference between LT recipients treated with or without RBV (P = 0.23).

Conclusions

Direct‐acting antiviral treatment is highly effective and well‐tolerated in liver transplant recipients with recurrent GT1 HCV infection.

Infections in Liver Transplantation

Liver transplantation has become an important treatment modality for patients with end-stage liver disease/cirrhosis, acute liver failure, and hepatocellular carcinoma. Although surgical techniques and immunosuppressive regimens for liver transplantation have improved significantly over the past 20 years, infectious complications continue to contribute to the morbidity and mortality in this patient population. The use of standardized screening protocols for both donors and recipients, coupled with targeted prophylaxis against specific pathogens, has helped to mitigate the risk of infection in liver transplant recipients. Patients with chronic liver disease and cirrhosis have immunological deficits that place them at increased risk for infection while awaiting liver transplantation. The patient undergoing liver transplantation is prone to develop healthcare-acquired infections due to multidrug-resistant organisms that could potentially affect patient outcomes after transplantation. The complex nature of liver transplant surgery that involves multiple vascular and hepatobiliary anastomoses further increases the risk of infection after liver transplantation. During the early post-transplantation period, healthcare-acquired bacterial and fungal infections are the most common types of infection encountered in liver transplant recipients. The period of maximal immunosuppression that occurs at 1–6 months after transplantation can be complicated by opportunistic infections due to both primary infection and reactivation of latent infection. Severe community-acquired infections can complicate the course of liver transplantation beyond 12 months after transplant surgery. This chapter provides an overview of liver transplantation including indications, donor-recipient selection criteria, surgical procedures, and immunosuppressive therapies. A focus on infections in patients with chronic liver disease/cirrhosis and an overview of the specific infectious complications in liver transplant recipients are presented.

Glecaprevir/Pibrentasvir Treatment in Liver or Kidney Transplant Patients With Hepatitis C Virus Infection

Well-tolerated, ribavirin-free, pangenotypic hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatments for transplant recipients remain a high priority. Once-daily glecaprevir/pibrentasvir demonstrates high rates of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks posttreatment (SVR12) across all major HCV genotypes (GTs). This trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir for patients with chronic HCV GT1-6 infection who had received a liver or kidney transplant. MAGELLAN-2 was a phase 3, open-label trial conducted in patients who were ≥3 months posttransplant. Patients without cirrhosis who were HCV treatment-naive (GT1-6) or treatment-experienced (GT1, 2, 4-6; with interferon-based therapy with or without sofosbuvir, or sofosbuvir plus ribavirin) received glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (300/120 mg) once daily for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint compared the percentage of patients receiving glecaprevir/pibrentasvir with SVR12 to a historic SVR12 rate based on the standard of care. Safety of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir was assessed. In total, 80 liver transplant and 20 kidney transplant patients participated in the trial. Most patients had no or minimal fibrosis (80% had fibrosis scores F0-F1) and were infected with HCV GT1 (57%) or GT3 (24%). The overall SVR12 was 98% (n/N = 98/100; 95% confidence interval, 95.3%-100%), which exceeded the prespecified historic standard-of-care SVR12 threshold of 94%. One patient experienced virologic failure. One patient discontinued because of an adverse event considered to be unrelated to treatment; this patient achieved SVR12. Adverse events were mostly mild in severity, and laboratory abnormalities were infrequent.

CONCLUSION

Once-daily glecaprevir/pibrentasvir for 12 weeks is a well-tolerated and efficacious, ribavirin-free treatment for patients with chronic HCV GT1-6 infection who have received a liver or kidney transplant. (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02692703.) (Hepatology 2018; 00:000-000).

Remaining clinical issues in hepatitis C treatment

Key advances in the evaluation and treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection have positively transformed the management and outcomes of those living with this chronic viral infection. Previously difficult-to-cure populations, including those coinfected with HIV infection, now enjoy similarly high success rates with interferon-free, orally administered direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapies. Nonetheless, relevant unresolved clinical questions remain. The role and impact of viral resistance testing on treatment selection and outcome remain to be fully determined. The consequences of developing resistance while on DAA treatments that ultimately prove unsuccessful requires further evaluation. Optimal HCV management strategies in decompensated liver disease are unclear, and the role for ribavirin in DAA treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients is uncertain. A chief concern for those with cirrhosis relates to the risk for de novo and recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma among DAA recipients. In this article, we present and interpret current data and consider pragmatic, clinically useful options.

Clinical impact of pharmacokinetic interactions between the HCV protease inhibitor simeprevir and frequently used concomitant medications

AIMS

Direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs) for the treatment of hepatitis C (HCV) can be associated with drug-drug interactions (DDIs) with concomitant medications. The practical clinical implications of such DDIs are poorly understood. We assessed the clinical impact of possible pharmacokinetic (PK) interactions between simeprevir and frequently prescribed concomitant medications.

METHODS

This post hoc analysis pooled data from nine studies which evaluated simeprevir (SMV)-based interferon-free HCV treatment. Three classes of frequently used concomitant medications of interest (CMOIs) were analysed [antihypertensive drugs (AHDs), anxiolytic drugs (AXDs) and lipid-lowering drugs (LLDs)] and categorized as amber or green according to their DDI potential with SMV (green: no DDIs; amber: potential/known PK interactions). Concomitant medications not recommended to be coadministered with SMV were not included. The composite primary endpoint was defined as the frequency of either discontinuation, interruption or dose modification of the CMOI during 12 weeks of SMV treatment.

RESULTS

Few patients met the composite endpoint in the various subgroups. Patients on amber CMOIs tended to experience CMOI modification more often (13.4-19.4%) than those on green CMOIs (3.1-10.8%). There was no difference in the frequency of adverse events between patients taking green and those taking amber CMOIs.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large pooled analysis, coadministration of the evaluated commonly prescribed medications with known or potential PK interactions with SMV was manageable and resulted in few adjustments of concomitant medications. Our method could serve as a blueprint for the evaluation of the impact of DDIs.

Real-world cure rates for hepatitis C virus treatments that include simeprevir and/or sofosbuvir are comparable to clinical trial results

AIM

To assess the real-world effectiveness and cost of simeprevir (SMV), and/or sofosbuvir (SOF)-based therapy for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection.

METHODS

The real-world performance of patients treated with SMV/SOF ± ribavirin (RBV), SOF/RBV, and SOF/RBV with pegylated-interferon (PEG) were analyzed in a consecutive series of 508 patients with chronic HCV infection treated at a single academic medical center. Patients with genotypes 1 through 4 were included. Rates of sustained virological response - the absence of a detectable serum HCV RNA 12 wk after the end of treatment [sustained virological response (SVR) 12] - were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis. Costs were calculated from the payer’s perspective using Medicare/Medicaid fees and Redbook Wholesale Acquisition Costs. Patient-related factors associated with SVR12 were identified using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

SVR12 rates were as follows: 86% (95%CI: 80%-91%) among 178 patients on SMV/SOF ± RBV; 62% (95%CI: 55%-68%) among 234 patients on SOF/RBV; and 78% (95%CI: 68%-86%) among 96 patients on SOF/PEG/RBV. Mean costs-per-SVR12 were $174442 (standard deviation: ± $18588) for SMV/SOF ± RBV; $223003 (± $77946) for SOF/RBV; and $126496 (± $31052) for SOF/PEG/RBV. Among patients on SMV/SOF ± RBV, SVR12 was less likely in patients previously treated with a protease inhibitor [odds ratio (OR): 0.20, 95%CI: 0.06-0.56]. Higher bilirubin (OR: 0.47, 95%CI: 0.30-0.69) reduced the likelihood of SVR12 among patients on SOF/RBV, while FIB-4 score ≥ 3.25 reduced the likelihood of SVR12 (OR: 0.18, 95%CI: 0.05-0.59) among those on SOF/PEG/RBV.

CONCLUSION

SVR12 rates for SMV and/or SOF-based regimens in a diverse real-world population are comparable to those in clinical trials. Treatment failure accounts for 27% of costs.

Follow-up of the Post-Liver Transplantation Patient: A Primer for the Practicing Gastroenterologist

The focus in liver transplantation in the next 10 years will likely change from preventing viral disease recurrence to minimizing the toll of rejection and fatty liver disease, minimizing the complications from immunosuppression with withdrawal strategies, and more optimal management of long-term risks, such as malignancy, cardiovascular disease, and renal failure. In addition, now that short-term results (<1 year) have improved significantly, there will be a shift toward improving long-term patient and graft survival, as well as a focus on primary care preventive strategies.

Current therapy for chronic hepatitis C: The role of direct-acting antivirals

One of the most exciting developments in antiviral research has been the discovery of the direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) that effectively cure chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections. Based on more than 100 clinical trials and real-world studies, we provide a comprehensive overview of FDA-approved therapies and newly discovered anti-HCV agents with a special focus on drug efficacy, mechanisms of action, and safety. We show that HCV drug development has advanced in multiple aspects: (i) interferon-based regimens were replaced by interferon-free regimens; (ii) genotype-specific drugs evolved to drugs for all HCV genotypes; (iii) therapies based upon multiple pills per day were simplified to a single pill per day; (iv) drug potency increased from moderate (∼60%) to high (>90%) levels of sustained virologic responses; (v) treatment durations were shortened from 48 to 12 or 8 weeks; and (vi) therapies could be administered orally regardless of prior treatment history and cirrhotic status. However, despite these remarkable achievements made in HCV drug discovery, challenges remain in the management of difficult-to-treat patients.

•

HCV genotype-specific drugs evolve to pan-genotypic drugs.

•

Drug potency increases from moderate (∼60%) to high (>90%) levels of sustained virologic response.

•

Treatment durations are shortened from a 48-week to 12-week or 8-week period.

•

HCV therapies based upon multiple pills per day are simplified to a single pill per day.

•

HCV therapies are administered orally regardless of prior treatment history and cirrhotic status.