Impact of new treatment options for hepatitis C virus infection in liver transplantation

Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis: Efficacy and Safety of Direct-Acting Antivirals for Chronic Hepatitis C Genotypes 5 and 6

Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are modern treatments for chronic hepatitis C infection, but majority of available evidence on its treatment effect covers genotypes 1 to 4. Therefore, the efficacy and safety of DAAs for genotypes 5 and 6 need to be analysed. Studies were identified from Medline, Scopus, and CENTRAL and a Chinese database CNKI, from inception until Dec 4, 2018. Clinical trials were included if they enrolled patients with genotypes 5 and/or 6 infection, any type of second-generation DAAs was studied, and sustained virological response was assessed at the 12^th week after treatment (SVR12) as outcome measure. Meta-analysis using metaprop statistical program was applied for pooling proportions if data were sufficient (i.e., at least 2 studies). Thirteen studies were included in the analysis. Four studies assessed the efficacy of four DAA regimens in genotype 5 patients, which were mainly sofosbuvir (SOF) plus pegylated-interferon/ribavirin (PR) or other DAAs, with SVR12 ranging from 94.4% to 100%. Twelve studies assessed the efficacy of seven DAA regimens among genotype 6 patients, but only two DAA regimens (i.e., SOF + PR and SOF/ledipasvir) had sufficient data for pooling. The pooled SVR12 rates (95% CI) were 99.6% (92.2 to 100) for SOF + PR and 99.2% (96.5 to 100) for SOF/ledipasvir. No treatment-related serious adverse event was reported, while the nonserious adverse events were comparable to other genotypes. In conclusion, DAAs are effective and may be safe for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C genotypes 5 and 6. However, our evidence is based on noncomparative studies; hence, further larger-scale randomized controlled trials in these genotypes are still required.

Humanized Mouse Models for the Study of Hepatitis C and Host Interactions

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is commonly attributed as a major cause of chronic hepatotropic diseases, such as, steatosis, cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. As HCV infects only humans and primates, its narrow host tropism hampers in vivo studies of HCV-mammalian host interactions and the development of effective therapeutics and vaccines. In this context, we will focus our discussion on humanized mice in HCV research. Here, these humanized mice are defined as animal models that encompass either only human hepatocytes or both human liver and immune cells. Aspects related to immunopathogenesis, anti-viral interventions, drug testing and perspectives of these models for future HCV research will be discussed.

Three renal failure cases successfully treated with ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir for genotype 1b hepatitis C virus reinfection after liver transplantation

We report three cases of genotype 1b hepatitis C virus (HCV) reinfection after liver transplantation. When antiviral treatment was considered, all three patients had renal dysfunction and had been treated with immunosuppressive agents for a long time; one with tacrolimus (TAC) and the others with cyclosporine A (CyA). Therefore, the possible antiviral regimens among direct-acting antivirals (DAA) were limited and so we treated all three patients with ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir (OBV/PTV/r). Because ritonavir is known to markedly increase the blood concentration of TAC and CyA through drug-drug interactions, close monitoring of blood concentrations of TAC or CyA and dose adjustments of immunosuppressive agents were needed. Sustained virus response was achieved in all the patients treated, and there were no adverse effects or transplant rejection. OBV/PTV/r might be a useful DAA regimen for patients with genotype 1 HCV reinfection in the setting of renal dysfunction.

Successful direct acting antiviral (DAA) treatment of HCV/HIV-coinfected patients before and after liver transplantation

Objectives

The aim of this multicenter retrospective study was to investigate safety and efficacy of direct acting antiviral (DAA) treatment in the rare subgroup of patients with HCV/HIV-coinfection and advanced liver cirrhosis on the liver transplant waiting list or after liver transplantation, respectively.

Methods

When contacting 54 German liver centers (including all 23 German liver transplant centers), 12 HCV/HIV-coinfected patients on antiretroviral combination therapy were reported having received additional DAA therapy while being on the waiting list for liver transplantation (patient characteristics: Child-Pugh A (n = 6), B (n = 5), C (n = 1); MELD range 7–21; HCC (n = 2); HCV genotype 1a (n = 8), 1b (n = 2), 4 (n = 2)). Furthermore, 2 HCV/HIV-coinfected patients were denoted having received DAA therapy after liver transplantation (characteristics: HCV genotype 1a (n = 1), 4 (n = 1)).

Results

Applied DAA regimens were SOF/DAC (n = 7), SOF/LDV/RBV (n = 3), SOF/RBV (n = 3), PTV/r/OBV/DSV (n = 1), or PTV/r/OBV/DSV/RBV (n = 1), respectively. All patients achieved SVR 12, in the end. In one patient, HCV relapse occurred after 24 weeks of SOF/DAC therapy; subsequent treatment with 12 weeks PTV/r/OBV/DSV achieved SVR 12. One patient underwent liver transplantation while on DAA treatment. Analysis of liver function revealed either stable parameters or even significant improvement during DAA therapy and in follow-up. MELD scores were found to improve in 9/13 therapies in patients on the waiting list for liver transplantation; in only 2 patients a moderate increase of MELD scores persisted at the end of follow-up.

Conclusion

DAA treatment was safe and highly effective in this nation-wide cohort of patients with HCV/HIV-coinfection awaiting liver transplantation or being transplanted.

Impact of hepatitis C virus (HCV) antiviral treatment on the need for liver transplantation (LT)

BACKGROUND

Therapies for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection have revolutionized the treatment of patients with chronic HCV infection. The effect of these therapies on the epidemiology of liver transplantation (LT) has yet to be elucidated.

AIM

To establish whether the indications for LT have changed as a result of the introduction of new therapies for HCV.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study based on a prospectively maintained registry of patients who undergo LT at La Fe Hospital in Valencia from 1997 to 2016. An analysis of outcome measures over time stratified by LT indications was performed.

RESULTS

From January 1997 to December 2016, 2379 patients were listed for LT. Of these, 1113 (47%) were listed for HCV cirrhosis±hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This percentage varied significantly over time declining from 48.8% in the 1997-2009 initial period (IFN-based regimens) to 33% in the 2014-2016 final period (DAAs regimens) (P = .03). However, during that period, the proportion of those included in the waiting list (WL) due to HCV-HCC increased significantly (P = .001). In addition, among HCV-positive waitlisted patients with decompensated cirrhosis without HCC, the proportion of those with an HCV-alcohol mixed etiology also increased significantly over time (P = .001). Of all HCV-positive waitlisted patients, 203 were eventually removed from the WL due to either clinical improvement (n = 77) or more frequently worsening/death (n = 126).

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of patients wait-listed for LT for decompensated HCV cirrhosis has significantly decreased over time. These changes are possibly related to the large-scale use of direct-acting antivirals.

Impact of sustained virologic response on short-term clinical outcomes in hepatitis C-related cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a common cause of cirrhosis, leading to increased morbidity and mortality. Treatment of the underlying etiology has been shown to improve fibrosis and cirrhosis.

AIM

We sought to evaluate the impact of a sustained virologic response on liver chemistries, model for end stage liver disease (MELD) score, Child-Pugh-Turcotte score (CPT), and fibrosis 4 score (FIB4) in patients with liver cirrhosis secondary to HCV with portal hypertension, with or without decompensation.

METHODS

Patients with HCV seen in our transplant clinic between June 2013 and September 2015 were identified using ICD-9 code 573.3. Charts were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

We collected data from 92 patients with a mean pretreatment MELD score of 9.16±2.98. The most common genotype was Ia, n=79 (86%). The mean duration of follow-up was 7.52±2.25 months. Transaminitis improved significantly at follow-up versus pretreatment [mean aspartate transaminase from 81.2±62.9 to 32.4±12.0 (P<0.0001); alanine transaminase 74.7±77.8 to 27.7±19.4 (P<0.0001)]. Albumin, bilirubin, and α-fetoprotein improved significantly. MELD scores improved in patients with pretreatment scores greater than 10 (P<0.0003), but not in patients with pretreatment scores less than 10 (P=0.501). The CPT score decreased from 6.1±0.9 to 5.8±0.9 (P<0.0024). The FIB4 score improved significantly in patients with baseline FIB4 more than 3.24, but not with higher baseline FIB4.

CONCLUSION

Use of direct antivirals in patients with decompensated cirrhosis because of HCV leads to improved MELD, FIB4, and CPT scores.

Direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C

BACKGROUND

Millions of people worldwide suffer from hepatitis C, which can lead to severe liver disease, liver cancer, and death. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs), e.g. sofosbuvir, are relatively new and expensive interventions for chronic hepatitis C, and preliminary results suggest that DAAs may eradicate hepatitis C virus (HCV) from the blood (sustained virological response). Sustained virological response (SVR) is used by investigators and regulatory agencies as a surrogate outcome for morbidity and mortality, based solely on observational evidence. However, there have been no randomised trials that have validated that usage.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of DAAs in people with chronic HCV.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for all published and unpublished trials in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, and BIOSIS; the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China Network Knowledge Information (CNKI), the Chinese Science Journal Database (VIP), Google Scholar, The Turning Research into Practice (TRIP) Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency (EMA) (www.ema.europa.eu/ema/), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (www.fda.gov), and pharmaceutical company sources for ongoing or unpublished trials. Searches were last run in October 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing DAAs versus no intervention or placebo, alone or with co-interventions, in adults with chronic HCV. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, and language.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were hepatitis C-related morbidity, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma, non-serious adverse events (each reported separately), and SVR. We systematically assessed risks of bias, performed Trial Sequential Analysis, and followed an eight-step procedure to assess thresholds for statistical and clinical significance. We evaluated the overall quality of the evidence, using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 138 trials randomising a total of 25,232 participants. The trials were generally short-term trials and designed primarily to assess the effect of treatment on SVR. The trials evaluated 51 different DAAs. Of these, 128 trials employed matching placebo in the control group. All included trials were at high risk of bias. Eighty-four trials involved DAAs on the market or under development (13,466 participants). Fifty-seven trials administered DAAs that were discontinued or withdrawn from the market. Study populations were treatment-naive in 95 trials, had been exposed to treatment in 17 trials, and comprised both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced individuals in 24 trials. The HCV genotypes were genotype 1 (119 trials), genotype 2 (eight trials), genotype 3 (six trials), genotype 4 (nine trials), and genotype 6 (one trial). We identified two ongoing trials.We could not reliably determine the effect of DAAs on the market or under development on our primary outcome of hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality. There were no data on hepatitis C-related morbidity and only limited data on mortality from 11 trials (DAA 15/2377 (0.63%) versus control 1/617 (0.16%); OR 3.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 26.18, very low-quality evidence). We did not perform Trial Sequential Analysis on this outcome.There is very low quality evidence that DAAs on the market or under development do not influence serious adverse events (DAA 5.2% versus control 5.6%; OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15 , 15,817 participants, 43 trials). The Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was sufficient information to rule out that DAAs reduce the relative risk of a serious adverse event by 20% when compared with placebo. The only DAA that showed a lower risk of serious adverse events when meta-analysed separately was simeprevir (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86). However, Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was not enough information to confirm or reject a relative risk reduction of 20%, and when one trial with an extreme result was excluded, the meta-analysis result showed no evidence of a difference.DAAs on the market or under development may reduce the risk of no SVR from 54.1% in untreated people to 23.8% in people treated with DAA (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.52, 6886 participants, 32 trials, low quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Only 1/84 trials on the market or under development assessed the effects of DAAs on health-related quality of life (SF-36 mental score and SF-36 physical score).There was insufficient evidence from trials on withdrawn or discontinued DAAs to determine their effect on hepatitis C-related morbidity and all-cause mortality (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.79; 5 trials, very low-quality evidence). However, these DAAs seemed to increase the risk of serious adverse events (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.73; 29 trials, very low-quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.None of the 138 trials provided useful data to assess the effects of DAAs on the remaining secondary outcomes (ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, and hepatocellular carcinoma).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence for our main outcomes of interest come from short-term trials, and we are unable to determine the effect of long-term treatment with DAAs. The rates of hepatitis C morbidity and mortality observed in the trials are relatively low and we are uncertain as to how DAAs affect this outcome. Overall, there is very low quality evidence that DAAs on the market or under development do not influence serious adverse events. There is insufficient evidence to judge if DAAs have beneficial or harmful effects on other clinical outcomes for chronic HCV. Simeprevir may have beneficial effects on risk of serious adverse event. In all remaining analyses, we could neither confirm nor reject that DAAs had any clinical effects. DAAs may reduce the number of people with detectable virus in their blood, but we do not have sufficient evidence from randomised trials that enables us to understand how SVR affects long-term clinical outcomes. SVR is still an outcome that needs proper validation in randomised clinical trials.

Influence of baseline MELD score in the efficacy of treatment of hepatitis C with simeprevir and sofosbuvir

INTRODUCTION

There are few published studies on predictors of response to treatment with sofosbuvir and simeprevir in HCV patients.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to analyse possible predictors of response to simeprevir (SMV) and sofosbuvir (SOF) in patients infected with hepatitis C genotypes 1 or 4.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Prospective observational cohort study in 12 hospitals. The primary efficacy endpoint was SVR rate 12 weeks after end of treatment (SVR12).

RESULTS

204 patients (62.3% male, mean age 55 years) were included: 186 (91.2%) genotype 1 (60.3% 1b 25% 1a) and 18 (8.8%) genotype 4. 132 (64.7%) cirrhotic (87.9% Child A), 33 (16.2%) F3, 31 (15.2%) F2, 8 (3.9%) F0-1. 80.8% MELD<10. 93 (45.6%) naive. Ribavirin was added in 68 (33.3%). Mean baseline viral load 2,151,549 IU/ml (SD: 2,391,840). Treatment duration 12 weeks in 93.1%. 4 discontinued therapy: suicide, psychotic attack, hyperbilirubinaemia and liver cancer recurrence. 190 (93.1%) achieved SVR12. There were no differences in SVR12 depending on the genotype, treatment duration, ribavirin use, prior therapy, viral load (VL) or baseline platelets. In univariate analysis, undetectable VL at 4 weeks (p=0.042), absence of cirrhosis (p=0.021), baseline albumin ≥ 4g/dl (p=0.001) and MELD<10 (p<0.0001) were associated with higher SVR12. In multivariate analysis, only baseline MELD score <10 patients had higher SVR12 (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of simeprevir and sofosbuvir in patients infected with genotype 1 and 4 hepatitis C is highly effective. It is a safe therapy, especially in patients without ribavirin. This combination was more effective in patients with a MELD score below 10.

Direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C

BACKGROUND

Millions of people worldwide suffer from hepatitis C, which can lead to severe liver disease, liver cancer, and death. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are relatively new and expensive interventions for chronic hepatitis C, and preliminary results suggest that DAAs may eradicate hepatitis C virus (HCV) from the blood (sustained virological response). However, it is still questionable if eradication of hepatitis C virus in the blood eliminates hepatitis C in the body, and improves survival and leads to fewer complications.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of DAAs in people with chronic HCV.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for all published and unpublished trials in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, and BIOSIS; the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China Network Knowledge Information (CNKI), the Chinese Science Journal Database (VIP), Google Scholar, The Turning Research into Practice (TRIP) Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency (EMA) (www.ema.europa.eu/ema/), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (www.fda.gov), and pharmaceutical company sources for ongoing or unpublished trials. Searches were last run in October 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing DAAs versus no intervention or placebo, alone or with co-interventions, in adults with chronic HCV. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, and language.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were hepatitis C-related morbidity, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma, non-serious adverse events (each reported separately), and sustained virological response. We systematically assessed risks of bias, performed Trial Sequential Analysis, and followed an eight-step procedure to assess thresholds for statistical and clinical significance. The overall quality of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 138 trials randomising a total of 25,232 participants. The 138 trials assessed the effects of 51 different DAAs. Of these, 128 trials employed matching placebo in the control group. All included trials were at high risk of bias. Eighty-four trials involved DAAs on the market or under development (13,466 participants). Fifty-seven trials administered withdrawn or discontinued DAAs. Trial participants were treatment-naive (95 trials), treatment-experienced (17 trials), or both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced (24 trials). The HCV genotypes were genotype 1 (119 trials), genotype 2 (eight trials), genotype 3 (six trials), genotype 4 (nine trials), and genotype 6 (one trial). We identified two ongoing trials.Meta-analysis of the effects of all DAAs on the market or under development showed no evidence of a difference when assessing hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality (OR 3.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 26.18, P = 0.19, I² = 0%, 2,996 participants, 11 trials, very low-quality evidence). As there were no data on hepatitis C-related morbidity and very few data on mortality (DAA 15/2377 (0.63%) versus control 1/617 (0.16%)), it was not possible to perform Trial Sequential Analysis on hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality.Meta-analysis of all DAAs on the market or under development showed no evidence of a difference when assessing serious adverse events (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15, P = 0.52, I² = 0%, 15,817 participants, 43 trials, very low-quality evidence). The Trial Sequential Analysis showed that the cumulative Z-score crossed the trial sequential boundary for futility, showing that there was sufficient information to rule out that DAAs compared with placebo reduced the relative risk of a serious adverse event by 20%. The only DAA that showed a significant difference on risk of serious adverse events when meta-analysed separately was simeprevir (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86). However, Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was not enough information to confirm or reject a relative risk reduction of 20%, and when one trial with an extreme result was excluded, then the meta-analysis result showed no evidence of a difference.DAAs on the market or under development seemed to reduce the risk of no sustained virological response (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.52, P < 0.00001, I² = 77%, 6886 participants, 32 trials, very low-quality evidence) and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Only 1/84 trials on the market or under development assessed the effects of DAAs on health-related quality of life (SF-36 mental score and SF-36 physical score).Withdrawn or discontinued DAAs had no evidence of a difference when assessing hepatitis C-related morbidity and all-cause mortality (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.79, P = 0.40, I² = 0%; 5 trials, very low-quality evidence). However, withdrawn DAAs seemed to increase the risk of serious adverse events (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.73, P = 0.001, I² = 0%, 29 trials, very low-quality evidence), and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Most of all outcome results were short-term results; therefore, we could neither confirm nor reject any long-term effects of DAAs. None of the 138 trials provided useful data to assess the effects of DAAs on the remaining secondary outcomes (ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, and hepatocellular carcinoma).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, DAAs on the market or under development do not seem to have any effects on risk of serious adverse events. Simeprevir may have beneficial effects on risk of serious adverse event. In all remaining analyses, we could neither confirm nor reject that DAAs had any clinical effects. DAAs seemed to reduce the risk of no sustained virological response. The clinical relevance of the effects of DAAs on no sustained virological response is questionable, as it is a non-validated surrogate outcome. All trials and outcome results were at high risk of bias, so our results presumably overestimate benefit and underestimate harm. The quality of the evidence was very low.

Liver Retransplantation: How Much Is Too Much?

Hepatic retransplantation has been surgically challenging since the beginning of liver transplant. Outcomes have improved over time, but patient survival with retransplant continues to be significantly worse than that of primary transplant. Many studies have focused on factors to predict outcomes. Models have been developed to help predict risk, but the decision for retransplant must be a multidisciplinary transplant team decision. The question of "when is too much?" can be guided by recipient and donor factors but is an ethical decision that must be made by the liver transplant team.

Future of liver disease in the era of direct acting antivirals for the treatment of hepatitis C

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection has been a global health problem for decades, due to the high number of infected people and to the lack of effective and well-tolerated therapies. In the last 3 years, the approval of new direct acting antivirals characterized by high rates of virological clearance and excellent tolerability has dramatically improved HCV infection curability, especially for patients with advanced liver disease and for liver transplant recipients. Long-term data about the impact of the new direct acting antivirals on liver fibrosis and liver disease-related outcomes are not yet available, due to their recent introduction. However, previously published data deriving from the use of pegylated-interferon and ribavirin lead to hypothesizing that we are going to observe, in the future, a reduction in mortality and in the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as a regression of fibrosis for people previously affected by hepatitis C. In the liver transplant setting, clinical improvement has already been described after treatment with the new direct acting antivirals, which has often led to patients delisting. In the future, this may hopefully reduce the gap between liver organ request and availability, probably expanding liver transplant indications to other clinical conditions. Therefore, these new drugs are going to change the natural history of HCV-related liver disease and the epidemiology of HCV infection worldwide. However, the global consequences will depend on treatment accessibility and on the number of countries that could afford the use of the new direct acting antivirals.

2015 Philip S. Portoghese Medicinal Chemistry Lectureship. Curing Hepatitis C Virus Infection with Direct-Acting Antiviral Agents: The Arc of a Medicinal Chemistry Triumph

The development of direct-acting antiviral agents that can cure a chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection after 8-12 weeks of daily, well-tolerated therapy has revolutionized the treatment of this insidious disease. In this article, three of Bristol-Myers Squibb's HCV programs are summarized, each of which produced a clinical candidate: the NS3 protease inhibitor asunaprevir (64), marketed as Sunvepra, the NS5A replication complex inhibitor daclatasvir (117), marketed as Daklinza, and the allosteric NS5B polymerase inhibitor beclabuvir (142), which is in late stage clinical studies. A clinical study with 64 and 117 established for the first time that a chronic HCV infection could be cured by treatment with direct-acting antiviral agents alone in the absence of interferon. The development of small molecule HCV therapeutics, designed by medicinal chemists, has been hailed as "the arc of a medical triumph" but may equally well be described as "the arc of a medicinal chemistry triumph".

Effect of Hepatitis C Positivity on Survival in Adult Patients Undergoing Heart Transplantation (from the United Network for Organ Sharing Database)

Concerns exist regarding orthotropic heart transplantation in hepatitis C virus (HCV) seropositive recipients. Thus, a national registry was accessed to evaluate early and late outcome in HCV seropositive recipients undergoing heart transplant. Retrospective analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing registry (1991 to 2014) was performed to evaluate recipient profile and clinical outcome of patients with HCV seropositive (HCV +ve) and seronegative (HCV -ve). Adjusted results of early mortality and late survival were compared between cohorts. From 23,507 patients (mean age 52 years; 75% men), 481 (2%) were HCV +ve (mean age 52 years; 77% men). Annual proportion of HCV +ve recipients was comparable over the study period (range 1.3% to 2.7%; p = 0.2). The HCV +ve cohort had more African-American (22% vs 17%; p = 0.01), previous left ventricular assist device utilization (21% vs 14%; p <0.01) and more hepatitis B core Ag+ve recipients (17% vs 5%; p <0.01). However, both cohorts were comparable in terms of extracorporeal membrane oxygenator usage (p = 0.7), inotropic support (p = 0.2), intraaortic balloon pump (p = 0.7) support, serum creatinine (p = 0.7), and serum bilirubin (p = 0.7). Proportion of status 1A patients was similar (24% HCV + vs 21% HCV -); however, wait time for HCV +ve recipients were longer (mean 23 vs 19 days; p <0.01). Among donor variables, age (p = 0.8), hepatitis B status (p = 0.4), and Center for Diseases Control high-risk status (p = 0.9) were comparable in both cohorts. At a median follow-up of 4 years, 67% patients were alive, 28% died, and 1.1% were retransplanted (3.4% missing). Overall survival was worse in the HCV+ cohort (64.3% vs 72.9% and 43.2% vs 55% at 5 and 10 years; p <0.01), respectively. Late renal (odds ratio [OR] 1.2 [1 to 1.6]; p = 0.02) and liver dysfunction (odds ratio 4.5 [1.2 to 15.7]; p = 0.01) occurs more frequently in HCV +ve recipients. On adjusted analysis, HCV seropositivity is associated with poorer survival (hazard ratio for mortality 1.4 [1.1 to 1.6]; p <0.001). In conclusion, a small proportion of patients receiving a heart transplant in the United States have hepatitis C. Despite comparable preoperative hepatic function, hepatitis C seropositive recipients demonstrate poorer long-term survival.

The impact of the revolution in hepatitis C treatment on hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatitis C infection represents a global health problem affecting ∼200 million chronically infected patients worldwide. Owing to the development of a fibrogenic and inflammatory micromilieu in the liver, hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected patients are at a high risk of developing fibrosis, cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The advent of direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs), however, has spurred a revolution in the treatment of HCV patients with sustained viral response (SVR) rates exceeding 90% in real-life settings. Recent clinical trials suggest that these novel treatments will not only alter the epidemiology of HCV infection but also the incidence of HCV-induced complications including hepatic decompensation, liver transplantation and hepatocarcinogenesis. Here, we summarize data from clinical trials carried out in HCV patients with compensated and decompensated cirrhosis and analyze the impact of viral clearance on HCC development and treatment. Finally, we review and discuss current and future treatment options of HCV patients with HCC in pre- and post-transplantation settings.

Predictive factors for survival and score application in liver retransplantation for hepatitis C recurrence

AIM: To identify risk factors associated with survival in patients retransplanted for hepatitis C virus (HCV) recurrence and to apply a survival score to this population.

METHODS: We retrospectively identified 108 patients retransplanted for HCV recurrence in eight European liver transplantation centers (seven in France, one in Spain). Data collection comprised clinical and laboratory variables, including virological and antiviral treatment data. We then analyzed the factors associated with survival in this population. A recently published score that predicts survival in retransplantation in patients with hepatitis C was applied. Because there are currently no uniform recommendations regarding selection of the best candidates for retransplantation in this setting, we also described the clinical characteristics of 164 patients not retransplanted, with F3, F4, or fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis (FCH) post-first graft presenting with hepatic decompensation.

RESULTS: Overall retransplantation patient survival rates were 55%, 47%, and 43% at 3, 5, and 10 years, respectively. Patients who were retransplanted for advanced cirrhosis had survival rates of 59%, 52%, and 49% at 3, 5, and 10 years, while those retransplanted for FCH had survival rates of 34%, 29%, and 11%, respectively. Under multivariate analysis, and adjusting for the center effect and the occurrence of FCH, factors associated with better survival after retransplantation were: negative HCV viremia before retransplantation, antiviral therapy after retransplantation, non-genotype 1, a Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score < 25 when replaced on the waiting list, and a retransplantation donor age < 60 years. Although the numbers were small, in the context of the new antivirals era, we showed that outcomes in patients who underwent retransplantation with undetectable HCV viremia did not depend on donor age and MELD score. The Andrés score was applied to 102 patients for whom all score variables were available, producing a mean score of 43.4 (SD = 6.6). Survival rates after the date of the first decompensation post-first liver transplantation (LT1) in the liver retransplantation (reLT) group (94 patients decompensated) at 3, 5, and 10 years were 62%, 59%, and 51%, respectively, among 78 retransplanted individuals with advanced cirrhosis, and 42%, 32%, and 16% among 16 retransplanted individuals with FCH. In the non-reLT group with hepatic decompensation, survival rates were 27%, 18%, and 9% at 3, 5, and 10 years, respectively (P < 0.0001). Compared with non-retransplanted patients, retransplanted patients were younger at LT1 (mean age 48 ± 8 years compared to 53 ± 9 years in the no reLT group, P < 0.0001), less likely to have human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) co-infection (4% vs 14% among no reLT patients, P = 0.005), more likely to have received corticosteroid bolus therapy after LT1 (25% in reLT vs 12% in the no reLT group, P = 0.01), and more likely to have presented with sustained virological response (SVR) after the first transplantation (20% in the reLT group vs 7% in the no reLT group, P = 0.028).

CONCLUSION: Antiviral therapy before and after retransplantation had a substantial impact on survival in the context of retransplantation for HCV recurrence, and with the new direct-acting antivirals now available, outcomes should be even better in the future.