Consenso Mexicano para el Tratamiento de la Hepatitis C

The aim of the Mexican Consensus on the Treatment of Hepatitis C was to develop clinical practice guidelines applicable to Mexico. The expert opinion of specialists in the following areas was taken into account: gastroenterology, infectious diseases, and hepatology. A search of the medical literature was carried out on the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases through keywords related to hepatitis C treatment. The quality of evidence was subsequently evaluated using the GRADE system and the consensus statements were formulated. The statements were then voted upon, using the modified Delphi system, and reviewed and corrected by a panel of 34 voting participants. Finally, the level of agreement was classified for each statement. The present guidelines provide recommendations with an emphasis on the new direct-acting antivirals, to facilitate their use in clinical practice. Each case must be individualized according to the comorbidities involved and patient management must always be multidisciplinary.     

Asunaprevir for hepatitis C: a safety evaluation

Introduction: The introduction of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) agents has revolutionized the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) chronic infection. Non-structural 3 protease inhibitors are currently the most numerous class of DAAs on the market.

Areas covered: This review mainly focuses on the tolerability and safety profile of asunaprevir (ASV)-containing DAA regimens. ASV is a second-wave protease inhibitor currently in Phase III clinical development in most countries and already available in Japan.

Expert opinion: ASV shows potent antiviral effect and clinical efficacy on HCV genotypes 1 and 4. The all-oral combination daclatasvir/ASV reached high eradication rates in HCV genotype 1b and 4 infection, and a lower efficacy in genotype 1a infection. ASV presents a low potential for drug–drug interaction and a good tolerability as part of multiple, including all-oral, regimens. ASV is associated with a transient and usually mild increase in aminotransferase levels in a low percentage of cases. Due to the impaired pharmacokinetic profile observed in advanced liver disease, ASV use in patients with moderate or severe hepatic impairment is not allowed. In conclusion, ASV represents a powerful weapon against HCV infection and has to be considered an optimal option as a component of genotype tailored interferon-free combinations.     

Comparing the risk of hypothyroidism in HCV patients treated with different DAA drugs combinations (sofosbuvir + interferon + ribavirin and sofosbuvir + daclatasvir + ribavirin)

The recent development of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) drugs has revolutionized the area of hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapeutics but the efficacy and clinical outcome of interferon (IFN)-free therapy have not been extensively studied yet. We observed a dramatic increase in hypothyroidism among patients treated with sofosbuvir, IFN, and ribavirin. This is the first prospective study of the thyroid dysfunction in DAA drugs treated patients. This study compared the risk of hypothyroidism in two different groups of HCV patients treated with different DAA drugs regimens that were sofosbuvir + pegylated-IFN-α + ribavirin and sofosbuvir + daclatasvir + ribavirin. Our findings highlight the periodic screening of serum thyroid-stimulating hormone and T4 levels in HCV infected patients during the treatment and posttreatment.     

Emergence of resistant variants detected by ultra‐deep sequencing after asunaprevir and daclatasvir combination therapy in patients infected with hepatitis C virus genotype 1

Daclatasvir (DCV) and asunaprevir (ASV) are NS5A and NS3 protease‐targeted antivirals respectively, currently under development for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. We analysed the relationship between pre‐existing drug‐resistant variants and clinical outcome of the combination treatment with DCV and ASV. Ten patients with HCV genotype 1b were orally treated with a combination of ASV and DCV for 24 weeks. The frequencies of amino acid (aa) variants at NS3 aa positions 155, 156 and 168 and at NS5A aa31 and 93 before and after treatment were analysed by ultra‐deep sequencing. We established a minimum variant frequency threshold of 0.3% based on plasmid sequencing. Sustained virological response (SVR) was achieved in 8 out of 10 patients (80%), and relapse of HCV RNA after cessation of the treatment and viral breakthrough occurred in the other two patients. Pre‐existing DCV‐resistant variants (L31V/M and/or Y93H; 0.9–99.4%) were detected in three out of eight patients who achieved SVR. Pre‐existing DCV‐resistant variants were detected in a relapsed patient (L31M, Y93H) and in a patient with viral breakthrough (Y93H); however, no ASV‐resistant variants were detected. In these patients, HCV RNA rebounded with ASV‐ and DCV‐ double resistant variants (NS3 D168A/V plus NS5A L31M and Y93H). While pre‐existing DCV‐resistant variants might contribute to viral breakthrough in DCV and ASV combination therapy, the effectiveness of prediction of the outcome of therapy based on ultra‐deep sequence analysis of pre‐existing resistant variants appears limited.     

High SVR rate following retreatment of non-sustained virological responders to sofosbuvir based anti-HCV therapies regardless of RAS testing: A real-life multicenter study

ABSTRACT

Aim: Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir/daclatasvir/ribavirin (SOF/DCV/RBV) in treating non-sustained virological responders (non-SVR12) to prior sofosbuvir-based therapy, in absence of RAS testing in mass treatment, and determination of the optimal timing to start re-treatment.

Methods: Real-life prospective observational study included prior non-responders to 24-weeks SOF-RBV (n = 679, 67%) or 12-weeks SOF- RBV- PEG (n = 335, 33%). Patients were re-treated with daily SOF/DCV/RBV for 12 (n = 270) or 24 weeks (n = 744). The primary efficacy endpoint was SVR12. The primary safety endpoints were reported adverse events (AEs) from baseline to SVR12 time point.

Results: We included 1,014 patients [age 52 ± 9 years, 58.48% men]. Cirrhosis was documented in 46.98% and 27.5% of SOF-RBV and SOF-RBV-PEG non-responders respectively. Overall, SVR12 was 90.6% [92.2% for 12 weeks therapy and 90.05% for 24 weeks therapy]. Mild AEs occurred in 5.13% (n=52) and 3.1% (n=32) discontinued treatment including eight on-treatment mortalities. Higher baseline FIB-4 and shorter interval before starting retreatment (<6 months) were independent predictors of non-SVR12 on multivariate regression analysis.

Conclusion: SOF/DCV/RBV is an effective and safe treatment option for non-responders to prior sofosbuvir-based therapy. Six months interval before retreatment is optimal for achieving favorable SVR.