Changes in serum lipid profiles caused by three regimens of interferon‐free direct‐acting antivirals for patients infected with hepatitis C virus

Aim

Serum low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) increases during treatment of chronic hepatitis C (CHC) with interferon‐free direct‐acting antivirals (DAAs). We sought to compare the changes of serum lipid profiles caused by three regimens.

Methods

A total of 216 CHC patients were enrolled. Among 170 patients infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1b, 85 received daclatasvir plus asunaprevir (DCV/ASV) and 85 received sofosbuvir plus ledipasvir (SOF/LDV). Forty‐six infected with HCV genotype 2 received sofosbuvir plus ribavirin (SOF/RBV). Serum total cholesterol (TC), LDL‐C, high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglyceride were measured at baseline and 4, 8, 12 (for all regimens), and 24 weeks (for DCV/ASV) during treatment (4w, 8w, 12w, and 24w, respectively) and 12 and 24 weeks after treatment (p12w and p24w, respectively).

Results

In 69 (81.2%) patients who received DCV/ASV and achieved a sustained virologic response at 24 weeks after the end of treatment (SVR24), TC and LDL‐C increased significantly from baseline to p24w. In 84 (98.8%) treated with SOF/LDV who achieved SVR24, TC and LDL‐C increased significantly from baseline to 8w, and TC decreased significantly from 8w to p12w. The 45 (97.8%) who received SOF/RBV and achieved SVR24 showed no significant changes. At 12w, TC and LDL‐C increased to a greater degree in patients receiving SOF/LDV than in those receiving DCV/ASV or SOF/RBV.

Conclusion

During treatment with DAAs, the serum lipid profile may reflect not only recovery from the disruption of lipid metabolism induced by HCV, but also the pharmacological effects of DAAs. Further investigations are needed to elucidate the effect of DAAs on serum lipid profiles.     

Current prospects for interferon‐free treatment of hepatitis C in 2012

Present interferon‐based therapy for chronic hepatitis C is limited by both efficacy and tolerability. Telaprevir and boceprevir are the first two direct‐acting antiviral drugs (DAAs) that inhibit hepatitis C virus replication to be licensed for use in conjunction with pegylated interferon and ribavirin. Numerous other DAAs are in clinical development, and phases 2 and 3 trials are evaluating interferon‐free combination DAA therapy. Interferon‐free sustained virologic responses have now been achieved with combinations of asunaprevir and daclatasvir; sofosbuvir and ribavirin; sofosbuvir and daclatasvir; faldaprevir and BI207127; ABT‐450, ritonovir and ABT‐333; ABT‐450, ritonovir and ABT‐072; miracitabine, danoprevir and ritonavir; and alisporivir and ribavirin. Some drugs are genotype‐specific in their activity, whereas others are pan‐genotypic, and differential responses for the genotype 1 subtypes 1a and 1b have emerged with many DAA combinations. Viral breakthrough and resistance are important considerations for future trial design. The prospect of interferon‐free combination DAA therapy for hepatitis C virus is now finally becoming a reality.     

Ribavirin revisited in the era of direct‐acting antiviral therapy for hepatitis C virus infection

Over the past two decades, ribavirin has been an integral component of treatment for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, where it has been shown to improve the efficacy of (pegylated) interferon. However, because of treatment‐limiting side effects and its additive toxicity with interferon, the search for interferon‐ and ribavirin‐free regimens has been underway. The recent approvals of all‐oral direct acting antivirals (DAAs) have revolutionized the HCV therapeutic landscape, and initially it was expected that the role of ribavirin with DAA regimens would be eliminated. On the contrary, what we have witnessed is that ribavirin retains an important role in the optimal treatment of some subgroups of patients, particularly those that historically have been considered the most difficult to cure. Fortunately, it has also been recognized that the safety profile of ribavirin is improved when co‐administered with all‐oral DAA combinations in the absence of interferon. Despite the antiviral mechanism of action of ribavirin being poorly understood, we now have a range of novel insights into the potential role of ribavirin in all‐oral DAA HCV treatment and greater insight into the antiviral mechanism by which it continues to provide clinical benefit for defined patient groups.     

The optimal timing of hepatitis C therapy in liver transplant‐eligible patients: Cost‐effectiveness analysis of new opportunities

Different strategies of DAAs treatment are currently possible both pre‐ and postliver transplantation (LT). Clinical and economic consequences of these strategies still need to be adequately investigated; this study aims at assessing their cost‐effectiveness. A decision analytical model was created to simulate the progression of HCV‐infected patients listed for decompensated cirrhosis (DCC) or for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Three DAAs treatment strategies were compared: (i) a 12‐week course of DAAs prior to transplantation (PRE‐LT), (ii) a 4‐week course of DAAs starting at the time of transplantation (PERI‐LT) and (iii) a 12‐week course of DAAs administered at disease recurrence (POST‐LT). The population was substratified according to HCC presence and, in those without HCC, according to the MELD score at listing. Data on DAAs effectiveness were estimated using a cohort of patients still followed by 11 transplant centres of the European Liver and Intestine Transplant Association and by data available in the literature. In this study, PRE‐LT treatment strategy was dominant for DCC patients with MELD<16 and cost‐effective for those with MELD16‐20, while POST‐LT strategy emerged as cost‐effective for DCC patients with MELD>20 and for those with HCC. Sensitivity analyses confirmed PRE‐LT as the cost‐effective strategy for patients with MELD≤20. In conclusion, PRE‐LT treatment is cost‐effective for patients with MELD≤20 without HCC, while treatments after LT are cost‐effective in cirrhotic patients with MELD>20 and in those with HCC. It is worth reminding, though, that the final choice of a specific regimen at the patient level will have to be personalized based on clinical, social and transplant‐related factors.     

Safety and efficacy of sofosbuvir‐based direct‐acting antiviral regimens for hepatitis C virus genotype 6 in Southwest China: Real‐world experience of a retrospective study

Optional treatments for patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype (GT) 6 infection have not been extensively studied. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of sofosbuvir (SOF)‐based direct‐acting antiviral agents (DAAs) for HCV GT6. We performed a retrospective study at the West China Hospital of Sichuan University in Southwest China from January 2016 to May 2017. Our study screened 130 treatment‐naïve patients with chronic HCV GT6 and without liver cirrhosis. A total of 60 HCV GT6 patients were ultimately enrolled. All patients received SOF‐based DAAs therapy, including SOF 400 mg plus daclatasvir (DCV) 60 mg daily or SOF 400 mg plus velpatasvir (VEL) 100 mg daily for 12 weeks. The sustained virological response 12 weeks after treatment (SVR12) was 100% (60/60) in treatment‐naïve patients with HCV GT6, including 100% (37/37) of patients receiving SOF plus DCV therapy and 100% (23/23) of patients receiving SOF plus VEL therapy. Measurements of liver stiffness were significantly decreased in patients at week 12 (P = 0.014) and week 24 (P < 0.001) of DAAs treatment compared to baseline values. The serum biomarker aspartate aminotransferase‐to‐platelet ratio index (APRI) and fibrosis‐4 score were also significantly reduced at week 12 and week 24 compared to before treatment (both P < 0.001). SOF‐based therapy was well‐tolerated, and no serious adverse events were reported. In conclusion, SOF plus DCV and SOF plus VEL were safe and achieved a high SVR12 rate for treatment‐naïve patients with HCV GT6 without liver cirrhosis.     

The impact of SVR from direct‐acting antiviral‐ and interferon‐based treatments for HCV on hepatocellular carcinoma risk

We evaluated the effect of sustained virologic response (SVR) from direct‐acting antiviral (DAA)‐ and interferon‐based treatments on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk in a large population‐based cohort in Canada. We used data from the BC Hepatitis Testers Cohort, which includes ~1.3 million individuals tested for HCV since 1990, linked with healthcare administrative and registry datasets. Patients were followed from the end of HCV treatment to HCC, death or 31 December 2016. We assessed HCC risk among those who did and did not achieve SVR by treatment type using proportional hazard models. Of 12 776 eligible individuals, 3905 received DAAs while 8871 received interferon‐based treatments, followed for a median of 1.0 [range: 0.6‐2.7] and 7.9 [range: 4.4‐17.1] years, respectively. A total of 3613 and 6575 achieved SVR with DAAs‐ and interferon‐based treatments, respectively. Among DAAs‐treated patients, HCC incidence rate was 6.9 (95%CI: 4.7‐10.1)/1000 person yr (PY) in SVR group (HCC cases: 26) and 38.2 (95%CI: 20.6‐71.0) in the no‐SVR group (HCC cases: 10, P < .001). Among interferon‐treated individuals, HCC incidence rate was 1.8 (95%CI: 1.5‐2.2) in the SVR (HCC cases: 99) and 13.9 (95%CI: 12.3‐15.8) in the no‐SVR group (HCC cases: 239, P < .001). Compared with no‐SVR from interferon, SVR from DAA‐ and interferon‐based treatments resulted in significant reduction in HCC risk (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio (adjSHR) DAA = 0.30, 95%CI: 0.19‐0.48 and adjSHR interferon = 0.2, 95%CI: 0.16‐0.26). Among those with SVR, treatment with DAAs compared to interferon was not associated with HCC risk (adjSHR = 0.93, 95%CI: 0.51‐1.71). In conclusion, similar to interferon era, DAA‐related SVR is associated with 70% reduction in HCC risk.     

Epidemiology of hepatitis C virus infection in a country with universal access to direct‐acting antiviral agents: Data for designing a cost‐effective elimination policy in Spain

Accurate HCV prevalence estimates are necessary for guiding elimination policies. Our aim was to determine the HCV prevalence and assess the cost‐effectiveness of a screen‐and‐treat strategy in the Spanish population. A population‐based, cross‐sectional study (PREVHEP‐ETHON Cohort, Epidemiological sTudy of Hepatic infectiONs; NCT02749864) was performed from July 2015‐April 2017. Participants from three Spanish regions were selected using two‐stage conglomerate sampling, and stratified by age, with randomized subject selection. Anthropometric and demographic data were collected, and blood samples were taken to detect anti‐HCV antibodies/quantify HCV RNA. The cost‐effectiveness of the screening strategies and treatment were analysed using a Markov model. Among 12 246 participants aged 20‐74 (58.4% females), the overall anti‐HCV prevalence was 1.2% (95% CI 1.0‐1.4), whereas the detectable HCV‐RNA prevalence was 0.3% (0.2‐0.4). Infection rates were highest in subjects aged 50‐74 years [anti‐HCV 1.6% (1.3‐1.9), HCV RNA 0.4% (0.3‐0.6]. Among the 147 anti‐HCV + subjects, 38 (25.9%) had active infections while 109 (74.1%) had been cleared of infection; 44 (40.4%) had cleared after antiviral treatment, whereas 65 (59.6%) had cleared spontaneously. Overall, 59.8% of the anti‐HCV + participants were aware of their serological status. Considering a cost of treatment of €7000/patient, implementing screening programmes is cost‐effective across all age cohorts, particularly in patients aged 50‐54 (negative incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio which indicates a cost‐saving strategy). The current HCV burden is lower than previously estimated, with approximately 25% of anti‐HCV + individuals having an active infection. A strategy of screening and treatment at current treatment prices in Spain is cost‐effective across all age cohorts.     

Early development of de novo hepatocellular carcinoma after direct‐acting agent therapy: Comparison with pegylated interferon‐based therapy in chronic hepatitis C patients

Patients with chronic hepatitis C who achieve a sustained viral response after pegylated interferon therapy have a reduced risk of hepatocellular carcinoma, but the risk after treatment with direct‐acting antivirals is unclear. We compared the rates of early development of hepatocellular carcinoma after direct‐acting antivirals and after pegylated interferon therapy. We retrospectively analysed 785 patients with chronic hepatitis C who had no history of hepatocellular carcinoma (211 treated with pegylated interferon, 574 with direct‐acting antivirals) and were followed up for at least 24 weeks after antiviral treatment. De novo hepatocellular carcinoma developed in 6 of 574 patients receiving direct‐acting antivirals and in 1 of 211 patients receiving pegylated interferon. The cumulative incidence of early hepatocellular carcinoma development did not differ between the treatment groups either for the whole cohort (1.05% vs 0.47%, P = .298) or for those patients with Child‐Pugh Class A cirrhosis (3.73% vs 2.94%, P = .827). Multivariate analysis indicated that alpha‐fetoprotein level >9.5 ng/mL at the time of end‐of‐treatment response was the only independent risk factor for early development of hepatocellular carcinoma in all patients (P < .0001, hazard ratio 176.174, 95% confidence interval 10.768‐2882.473) and in patients treated with direct‐acting agents (P < .0001, hazard ratio 128.402, 95% confidence interval 8.417‐1958.680). In conclusion, the rate of early development of hepatocellular carcinoma did not differ between patients treated with pegylated interferon and those treated with direct‐acting antivirals and was associated with the serum alpha‐fetoprotein level at the time of end‐of‐treatment response.     

Interferon‐α/β for treatment of chronic hepatitis C infection in the era of direct‐acting antiviral agents

Type I interferons (IFN‐α/β), with or without ribavirin, have been the only agents that can eradicate the hepatitis C virus (HCV). An IFN‐free regimen combining oral direct‐acting antiviral agents (DAA) will be approved soon for genotype 1 patients. Here, we discuss the role of IFN‐α/β in the forthcoming “era of DAA” with consideration of limitations and concerns about IFN‐free therapies. First, the therapeutic efficacy of first‐generation DAA varies among the different subtypes. While the rate of sustained virological response (SVR) is 60–90% among patients with genotype 1b, the rate often falls short of 50% in patients with genotype 1a. IFN and ribavirin can still be indicated for patients with genotype 1a as a platform for combination with DAA. Second, there is concern about the emergence of drug‐resistance resulting from inappropriate use of DAA. The clinical significance of pre‐existing resistant variants has not been elucidated. Drug resistance may affect the efficacy of next‐generation treatments. An IFN and ribavirin backbone in combination with DAA is an effective measure to prevent the emergence of drug resistance and/or to suppress pre‐existing resistant viruses. Third, it remains unknown whether the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) will be reduced in patients who achieve SVR with IFN‐free regimens. In contrast, there are many reports in Japan demonstrating the preventive effects of IFN on the development of HCC. When patients do not achieve SVR with first‐generation DAA, low‐dose IFN maintenance therapy is a treatment option until the next‐generation therapy with pan‐genotypic potency and high genetic barrier become available.     

Comparing the risk of hepatitis B virus reactivation between direct‐acting antiviral therapies and interferon‐based therapies for hepatitis C

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation has been reported during antihepatitis C treatment in patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) and HBV co‐infection. We aimed to evaluate the frequency and risk factors of HBV reactivation during anti‐HCV therapy and compared those between interferon (IFN)‐free direct‐acting antiviral (DAA) therapies and IFN‐based therapies. Three hundred and twenty‐two patients with HCV infection receiving anti‐HCV therapy were retrospectively screened. The baseline HBV infection statuses of all eligible patients and the HBV‐DNA level of all patients with current or previous HBV infection were examined at the end of treatment. In patients with baseline anti‐HBs positivity, changes in anti‐HBs titre were evaluated. Of 287 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 157 had current (n=4) or previous (n=153) HBV infection; 85 were treated with IFN‐free DAA therapies and 72 were treated with IFN‐based therapies. Six patients experienced HBV reactivation (n=2) or HBV reappearance (n=4) after IFN‐free DAA therapies, while no patient developed HBV reactivation after IFN‐based therapies. The risk factors of HBV reactivation or reappearance were DAA therapies and a reduction in anti‐HBs titre to <12 mIU mL^?1 by the end of treatment. The decline changes of anti‐HBs titre were significantly higher in patients treated with DAA therapies. Although HBV reactivation hepatitis was not observed, three of four patients with HBV reactivation or reappearance after achieving HCV eradication had viremia 8 weeks after completion of therapy. A significant proportion of patients develop HBV reactivation or reappearance without hepatitis after IFN‐free DAA therapies. Low levels of anti‐HBs and their decrease to <12 mIU mL^?1 after treatment are significant risk factors for HBV reactivation or reappearance.     

Spontaneous remission of hepatitis B virus reactivation during direct‐acting antiviral agent‐based therapy for chronic hepatitis C

The administration of direct‐acting antiviral agents (DAAs) to treat hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection has been reported to cause hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation. However, the actual conditions of HBV reactivation and the ideal timing of medical intervention have not been fully evaluated. We report the cases of two female patients dually infected with HBV and HCV. Both patients were inactive HBV carriers. Although the serum HCV RNA levels promptly decreased after the initiation of DAA‐based therapy, the serum HBV DNA levels gradually increased during DAA‐based therapy, with the peak serum HBV DNA levels observed at 16 weeks after the initiation of DAA‐based therapy in both cases. Subsequently, we checked the serum HBV DNA levels closely every week several times. Fortunately, the serum HBV DNA levels gradually decreased without medical intervention. Neither case developed an alanine aminotransferase flare‐up. The HCV genotypes were 2a and 1b, and the DAA‐based therapies of Cases 1 and 2 were 12 weeks of sofosbuvir/ribavirin and ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir, respectively. The significance of our case reports is the demonstration of the existence of spontaneous remission of HBV reactivation that developed during DAA‐based therapy, the avoidance of intervention of nucleot(s)ide analogs by frequent monitoring of serum HBV DNA levels, and development of HBV reactivation regardless of the viral genotype or class of DAA. In conclusion, the close monitoring of serum HBV DNA levels during and after DAA‐based therapy is essential and medical intervention for HBV reactivation should be carefully considered on an individual basis.     

Cost‐effectiveness of sofosbuvir for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C‐infected patients

The efficacy of treatment for hepatitis C genotype 1 infection has significantly improved with the introduction of first‐generation protease inhibitors. However, there remains a need for effective treatments for patients infected with other genotypes, for nonresponders and patients unsuitable for interferon. Sofosbuvir is the first nucleotide polymerase inhibitor with pan‐genotypic activity. Sofosbuvir‐based regimens have resulted in >90% sustained virological response across treatment‐naïve genotype 1–6 patients in five phase III clinical trials of sofosbuvir administered with ribavirin or pegylated interferon and ribavirin. This analysis evaluates the cost‐effectiveness of sofosbuvir within the current licensed indication, for genotype 1–6 in the UK. A Markov model followed a cohort of 10 000 patients over lifetime, with approximately 20% initiating treatment for compensated cirrhosis. Sofosbuvir‐regimens were compared to telaprevir, boceprevir, pegylated interferon and ribavirin, or no treatment. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. The cost perspective utilized costs applicable to the National Health Service in the UK. Sofosbuvir proved to be cost‐effective in most patient populations with incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios (ICERs) at £11 836/QALY and £7292/QALY against telaprevir and boceprevir, respectively. In genotype 3, sofosbuvir had a weighted ICER of £18 761/QALY. Sofosbuvir‐based regimens are a cost‐effective option for the majority of hepatitis C‐infected patients in the United Kingdom although the incremental cost‐effectiveness varies by genotype and regimen. Sofosbuvir and ribavirin is an alternative regimen for patients unsuitable for interferon.