#PAGE_PARAMS# #ADS_HEAD_SCRIPTS# #MICRODATA#

Sofosbuvir-based regimen for genotype 2 HCV infected patients in Taiwan: A real world experience


Authors: Wei-Lun Tsai aff001;  Chih-Feng Wang aff001;  Jin-Shiung Cheng aff001;  Wen-Chi Chen aff001;  Ming-Jong Bair aff003;  Ching-Chu Lo aff002
Authors place of work: Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan aff001;  School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan aff002;  Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Taitung Mackay Memorial Hospital, Taitung, Taiwan aff003;  Mackay Medical College, New Taipei City, Taiwan aff004;  Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, St. Martin De Porres Hospital, Chiayi, Taiwan aff005;  Chung-Jen junior College of Nursing, Health Sciences and Management, Chiayi, Taiwan aff006
Published in the journal: PLoS ONE 15(1)
Category: Research Article
doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227424

Summary

Background

Sofosbuvir (SOF)-based regimens achieve excellent efficacy and safety in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C (CHC) with various genotypes. There are few real-world instances of the use of SOF-based regimens to treat genotype 2 CHC. This study determines the effectiveness and safety of SOF/Ribavirn (RBV), SOF/Daclatasvir (DCV) and SOF/DCV/RBV in the treatment of genotype 2 CHC patients in Taiwan.

Material and methods

Patients with genotype 2 CHC were treated for 12 weeks with SOF/RBV, SOF/DCV or SOF/DCV/RBV under the National Health Insurance reimbursement program in three hospitals in Taiwan. The sustained virological response at 12 weeks (SVR12) was determined. Adverse events were recorded for a safety analysis.

Results

A total of 467 genotype 2 CHC patients were enrolled from January to October 2018. One hundred and eleven patients (24%) had cirrhosis, including 10 patients (2.1%) with hepatic decompensation. Fifty-five patients (12%) had already experienced interferon-alpha/RBV treatment. Forty-two patients (9%) had a history of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the baseline. Three hundred and fifty-five patients received SOF/RBV, forty-seven patients received SOF/DCV and sixty-two patients received SOF/DCV/RBV. The SOF/DCV group featured a greater HCV viral load than the SOF/RBV or SOF/DCV/RBV groups. SVR12 was achieved in 94.6% of the SOF/RBV group, 95.7% of the SOF/DCV group and 96.8% of then SOF/DCV/RBV group (P = NS). Thirteen out of 352 patients (3.7%) in the SOF/RBV group, 1 out of 62 patients (1.6%) in the SOF/DCV/RBV group and 1 out of 47 patients (2.1%) in the SOF/DCV group developed virological failure. There are no differences in virological failure between the three groups (P = NS). Multi-variate analysis shows that history of HCC is an independent factor that is associated with the failure of treatment in the SOF/RBV group (odds ratio:4.905, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.321–18.205, P = 0.017). Hemoglobin levels at 12 weeks are significantly lower in the SOF/RBV and the SOF/RBV/DCV group than in the SOF/DCV group (P<0.05). Serious adverse events (SAE) occurred in six patients (1.6%) in the SOF/RBV group and in one patient (1.6%) in the SOF/RBV/DCV group. No patients in the SOF/DCV group experienced SAE.

Conclusions

SOF/RBV, SOF/DCV or SOF/DCV/RBV for 12 weeks all achieve very high SVR rates and are equally effective in the treatment of genotype 2 CHC patients in the real world in Taiwan. Patients in the SOF/RBV group who have a history of HCC exhibit a lower SVR rate.

Keywords:

Hemoglobin – Hepatitis C virus – Cirrhosis – Adverse events – hepatocellular carcinoma – Taiwan – liver fibrosis – anemia

Introduction

In Taiwan, hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection has a prevalence of around 2–5% and HCV is a major cause of liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in Taiwan [1]. In patients with acute HCV infection, 60–90% become chronically infected with HCV (CHC) and after 20–30 years of infection, 20–30% develop cirrhosis of the liver or HCC [2,3]. Recent years, there have been significant progress in anti-HCV therapy. The resolution of the three-dimensional structures of several HCV proteins and the development of replicative cell culture systems has led to the identification of a number of potential targets for direct-acting antiviral (DAA) agents [45]. DAAs are very effective in the treatment of HCV and are associated with a significant decrease in liver-related morbidity and mortality [610]. Sofosbuvir (SOF) is an oral nucleotide analogue inhibitor of the NS5B polymerase of HCV. Phase 3 studies and real world data show that a combination of SOF and ribavirin (RBV) for 12 weeks produces a rate of sustained virological response (SVR) of 83–97% for genotype 2 CHC patients [1119]. Other real world data show that SVR rates are lower but the independent predictor for the failure of treatment is rarely identified. Daclatasvir (DCV) is an inhibitor of NS5A of HCV. Several recent studies, DCV have added to SOF for the treatment of genotype 2 CHC with a SVR rate of 90–100% [20,21,22]. However, it is not clear that adding DCV to SOF with or without RBV increases SVR rates for the treatment of genotype 2 CHC. This study determines the effectiveness and safety of SOF/RBV, SOF/DCV and SOF/DCV/RBV for the treatment of genotype 2 chronic HCV patients in the real world in Taiwan.

Patients and methods

Study design

Since January 2017, the National Health Insurance Administration (NHIA) of Taiwan provides reimbursement for SOF-based DAAs for patients with advanced fibrosis who are infected with HCV. From January 2018 to October 2018, consecutive patients with genotype 2 chronic HCV who had advanced liver fibrosis and who received SOF/RBV, SOF/DCV or SOF/DCV/RBV were enrolled in a program that was sponsored by the NHIA of Taiwan in three hospitals (Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital in southern Taiwan, St. Martin De Porres Hospital in central Taiwan and Taitung MacKay Memorial Hospital in eastern Taiwan). This is not a randomized study and in the clinical settings, patients were treated with SOF/RBV, SOF/DCV or SOF/DCV/RBV irrespective of the clinical condition. Advanced fibrosis was at least stage III liver fibrosis and was defined in terms of the presence of any one of the following: transient elastography (TE) with a liver stiffness measurement (LSM) ≥ 9.5Kpa [23], a Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score ≥ 3.25 [24], a liver biopsy presenting a METAVIR fibrosis score ≥ 3, [25] or ultrasound-diagnosis of liver cirrhosis with splenomegaly or gastroesophageal varices by endoscopy [26]. Key exclusion criteria included: active HCC before treatment, a Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of less than 30 ml/min or an absolute contraindication for the use of SOF, DCV or RBV.

Assessment and end-points

All enrolled patients received HCV RNA at baseline, 12 weeks on-treatment and 12 weeks end-of-treatment (EOT) and liver function tests, prothrombin time, renal function tests and complete blood counts at baseline and every 4 weeks during treatment and 12 weeks after EOT. Patients in the SOF/RBV group received SOF 400 mg once daily and, weight-based ribavirin (1000 or 1200 mg) twice daily. Patients in the SOF/DCV or SOF/DCV/RBV group received SOF 400 mg once daily and DCV 60 mg once daily with or without weight-based ribavirin (1000 or 1200 mg) twice daily. Anemia that developed during treatment was managed by reducing the RBV dose by 200 mg. Liver decompensation was defined as a Child–Turcotte–Pugh (CTP) classification of B or C. The presence of HCC was confirmed by a histological or image evaluation based on the recommendations of the current guidelines [2729]. The primary efficacy endpoint was defined as the achievement of SVR12, which was defined as a HCV RNA level of less than the lower limit for quantification (LLOQ, 25 IU/ml) 12 weeks after stopping DAAs. All AEs were recorded and assessed according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) (version4.0).

Statistical analysis

Clinical characteristics and clinical data were described using frequency counts and percentages for categorical variables and means with standard deviations for continuous variables. Group comparisons were performed using a Mann-Whitney Utest and a Pearson chi-square or a Fisher exact test for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Covariates in the multivariable model were chosen a priori in terms of clinical importance. Each p-value is two-sided and is considered statistically significant if the p-value is less than 0.05. All analyses were performed using SPSS version 18.0.

Ethics statement

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital, St. Martin De Porres Hospital and Taitung Mackay Memorial Hospital. This is a retrospective study that does not involve intervention or obtaining clinical specimens and all the data is analyzed anonymously, so the need for informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Boards of Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital, St. Martin De Porres Hospital and Taitung Mackay Memorial Hospital. The patients’ medical records were accessed since January 2018 to April 2019.

Results

Characteristics of patients

A total of 341 patients who were chronically infected with genotype 2 CHC were enrolled from January to Aug 2019. 358 patients received SOF/RBV, 62 patients received SOF/RBV/DCV and 47 patients received SOF/DCV treatment. The demographic and baseline characteristics for the SOF/RBV, SOF/DCV/RBV and SOF/DCV groups are shown in Table 1. HCV RNA in the SOF/DCV group is higher than that for the SOF/RBV (P = 0.003) and SOF/RBV/DCV groups (P < 0.001). Total bilirubin level is higher in the SOF/DCV than the SOV/RBV group (P = 0.048). Age, sex, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), creatinine, hemoglobin, platelet, prothrombin, compensated or decompensated cirrhosis, treatment experienced and history of HCC are comparable for the SOF/RBV, SOF/RBV/DCV and SOF/DCV groups.

Tab. 1. Demographic characteristics of patients by treatment regimen.
Demographic characteristics of patients by treatment regimen.

Efficacy

A total of 444 of 467 (95.1%) patients achieved SVR12. In the intention to treat (ITT) population analysis, SVR12 was achieved in 339 of 359 (94.6%) patients in the SOF/RBV group and 60 of 62 (96.8%) patients in the SOF/DCV/RBV group and 45 of 47 patients (95.7%) in the SOF/DCV group (P = non-significant (NS). In the per-protocol (PP) population analysis, SVR12 was achieved in 339 of 352 (96.3%) patients in the SOF/RBV group and 60 of 61 (98.3%) patients in the SOF/DCV/RBV group and 45 of 46 patients (97.8%) in the SOF/DCV group (P = non-significant (NS) (Fig 1). Of the 467 patients who were subject to SOF-based regimens, only one patient who received SOF/RBV experienced a virological breakthrough during treatment (Table 2). Thirteen out of 352 patients (3.7%) in the SOF/RBV group, 2 out of 62 patients (3.2%) in the SOF/DCV/RBV group and 1 out of 47 patients (2.1%) in the SOF/DCV group developed virological failure. There are no differences of virological failure between the three groups of patients (P = NS). In the SOF/RBV group, a univariate analysis shows that cirrhosis and history of HCC is associated with treatment failure (P = 0.053 and 0.004 respectively) (Fig 2). Multivariate analysis shows that a history of HCC is associated with treatment failure (odds rati: 4.905, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.321–18.205, P = 0.017) (Table 3). In the SOF/RBV/DCV and SOF/DCV group, statistical analysis does not determine any independent factors that are associated with treatment failure (Figs 3 and 4). Six patients in the SOF/RBV group and one patient in the SOF/DCV/RBV group can not complete 12 weeks of treatment but they lost follow up and do not have SVR-12 data. Adherence to DAAs as measured by medication event monitoring system or pill counts were not performed in this study. The influence of early stopping or strict adherence of DAA on SVR rate were not known from this study.

Sustained virologocal response (SVR) rates in patients who received SOF/RBV, SOF/DCV or SOF/DCV/RBV regimens.
Fig. 1. Sustained virologocal response (SVR) rates in patients who received SOF/RBV, SOF/DCV or SOF/DCV/RBV regimens.
SOF: sofosbuvir, RBV: ribavirin, DCV: daclatasvir.
Subgroup analysis of the sustained virologocal response (SVR) rates in patients who received SOF/RBV regimen.
Fig. 2. Subgroup analysis of the sustained virologocal response (SVR) rates in patients who received SOF/RBV regimen.
SOF: sofosbuvir, RBV: ribavirin.
Subgroup analysis of the sustained virologocal response (SVR) rates in patients who received SOF/DCV/RBV regimen.
Fig. 3. Subgroup analysis of the sustained virologocal response (SVR) rates in patients who received SOF/DCV/RBV regimen.
SOF: sofosbuvir, RBV: ribavirin, DCV: daclatasvir.
Subgroup analysis of the sustained virologocal response (SVR) rates in patients who received SOF/DCV regimen.
Fig. 4. Subgroup analysis of the sustained virologocal response (SVR) rates in patients who received SOF/DCV regimen.
SOF: sofosbuvir, DCV: daclatasvir.
Tab. 2. Virological responses during and after treatment.
Virological responses during and after treatment.
Tab. 3. Multivariable predictors of DAA treatment failure in genotype 2 chronic hepatitis C patients who received SOF/RBV regimen.
Multivariable predictors of DAA treatment failure in genotype 2 chronic hepatitis C patients who received SOF/RBV regimen.

Safety

Overall, the SOF based regimen for the treatment of genotype 2 chronic HCV is safe and well tolerated by patients (Table 4). Premature discontinuation of treatment because of adverse events is uncommon for all treatment groups. Six patients in the SOF/RBV group, 6 stopped treatment early, one refused to continue treatment but suffered no adverse effects (AE), 5 stopped treatment due to AE, 1 of whom had progression of ascites, 1 of whom had skin rash, 1 of whom had severe edema in the lower legs and an increase in creatinine level, 1 of whom experienced headache, insomnia and weakness and 1 of whom had severe itching. One patient in the SOF/RBV/DCV group refused to continue treatment but did not have any AE. One patient in the SOF/DCV group completed 12 weeks of treatment but refused to receive follow-up. No patients in the SOF/DCV group developed significant anemia, which is defined as a hemoglobin level of less than 10 mg/dl, but 10% of patients in the SOF/RBV group and 14% of patients in the SOF/RBV/DCV group developed significant anemia (P < 0.05).

Tab. 4. Adverse events.
Adverse events.

Discussion

SOF/RBV was not recommended by AASLD and EASL. However, in the APASL HCV guideline, for treatment-naive HCV GT-2 patients, daily sofosbuvir plus weight-based ribavirin for 12 weeks is recommended [6,30,31]. The data from three hospitals in Central, Southern and Eastern Taiwan show that the SOF-based regimen achieves an excellent SVR rate and has a good safety profile for genotype 2 CHC patients. Patients who receive SOF/RBV, SOF/DCV or SOF/DCV/RBV for 12 weeks all achieve very high SVR rates and were equally effective in treating genotype 2 CHC patients in the real world in Taiwan.

In a real world study for North America and Europe, Welzel et al. found that 12 or 16 weeks of SOF/RBV treatment achieves an SVR rate of 88.2% for genotype 2 CHC [17]. Another real world study involving 823 U.S. veterans with genotype-2 CHC showed that the SVR rates for SOF/RBV are 79% [32]. Another European study showed that for 236 patients with genotype 2 CHC who were treated for 12 weeks with SOF/RBV, SVR rates were achieved in only 83% of patients [15]. Several real world studies report similar results and show that SVR rates in real life were lower than those for clinical trials. However, in a phase 3b study in Taiwan, Kao et al. noted that SOF/RBV achieves a SVR rate of 100% in 83 patients with genotype 2 CHC [14]. In a recent real world study in Japan, Akahane et al. noted that treatment with SOF/RBV for 12 weeks results in SVR rates of 96.8% for a group of 914 patients who were infected with genotype II CHC s [16]. This real world study shows that treatment with SOF/RBV for 12 weeks achieves SVR rates of 94.6%, which is comparable with the real world rate for Japan and more than the real world rate for the Western world. Data for the registration clinical trials shows that the SVR rates for a SOF/RBV regimen are lower for patients with cirrhosis, especially for those who do not have previous IFN therapy [3334]. This study finds that exposure to previous IFN treatment does not affect SVR rates and patients with cirrhosis have lower SVR rates only in a univariate analysis.

SOF/velpatasvir (VEL) combination therapy is recommended for the treatment of genotype 2 CHC patients [6,31]. In a recent study, Belperio et al. found that SVR rates do not differ between DCV + SOF (94.5%) and VEL/SOF (94.4%) or between DCV + SOF + RBV (88.1%) and VEL/SOF + RBV (89.5%) for genotype 2 CHC patients [34]. SOF/DCV with or without RBV remains an important combination regimen for genotype 2 CHC, especially in countries where SOF/VEL is not clinically approved. However, it is unclear whether adding RBV to the combination of SOF/DCV increases the SVR rate. A small Taiwanese study found that SOF/DCV with and without RBV achieves similarly high SVR rates in 32 patients with genotype 2 CHC [35]. Another small Taiwanese study notes that SOF/DCV with or without RBV results in similarly high SVR rates for 50 patients with genotype 2 CHC [36]. This study finds that the SVR rate is achieved for 60 of 62 (96.8%) patients in the SOF/DCV/RBV group and 45 of 47 patients (95.7%) in the SOF/DCV group, and adding RBV to the SOF/DCV regimen does not effect the SVR rate. Few studies compare the efficacy of SOF/RBV and SOF/DCV for the treatment of genotype 2 CHC. A recent study by Sulkowski et al. found that SOF/DCV achieves a SVR rate of 92% for 26 patients with genotype 2 CHC [20]. In a recent study, Belperio et al. found that SOF/DCV results in a SVR rate of 94.5%. [37]. In another recent study, Mangia et al. found that treatment with SOF/DCV for 12 or 24 weeks achieves a 100% SVR rate for 106 patients with genotype 2 CHC [22]. In another recent study, Swallow et al. discovered that for patients who were co-infected with genotype 1–3 CHC and HIV, the SVR12 rate is higher for patients who are treated with SOF/DCV (n = 91) than for those who are treated with SOF/RBV (n = 455) (96.7% vs 84.6%; P = 0.002) [38]. This study finds that SOF/RBV and SOF/DCV achieve similarly high SVR rates (94.6% vs. 95.5%) for the treatment of genotype 2 CHC.

In a retrospective cohort study, Prenner et al. found that 21% of patients fail to achieve SVR with HCC, compared to 12% of patients without HCC (p = 0.009) [39], but only 5% of patients were genotype 2. A recent study by Beste et al. used a cohort of US veteran patients to show that the overall SVR rate is 91.1% for non-HCC and 74.4% for HCC. The presence of HCC is associated with a lower likelihood of SVR [40]. However almost 80% of patients had genotype 1 CHC. In another recent study of 1021 patients with CHC, Yen et al. discovered that active HCC is associated with non-SVR after DAA treatment [41], but the study was heterogenous and only 32.3% of patients had genotype 2 CHC and up to eight DAA regimens were used in the study. In a recent study from Taiwan, Huang et al. in CHC patients who received DAAs treatment disclosed that a substantially but not significantly lower SVR rate, 92.1% (35/38), was observed in the patients with viable HCC compared with the SVR rate, 97.3% (72/74), in those with curative HCC (p = 0.33) [42]. But only 13% of patients in this study were genotype 2 CHC. For patients in this study who received the SOF/RBV regimens, multivariate analysis shows that a history of HCC is associated with a failure in treatment. This study focuses on patients with genotype 2 CHC who receive a SOF/RBV regimen and identifies the independent factor that is associated with a failure in treatment. Patients with genotype 2 CHC who have a history of HCC have a lower SVR rate so treatment options other than SOF/RBV may be considered.

The SOF-based regimen for the treatment of genotype 2 chronic HCV is safe and is tolerated by Taiwanese patients. Premature discontinuation of treatment because of adverse events is uncommon for all of the treatment groups but more patients in the SOF/RBV and the SOF/RBV/DCV groups develop significant anemia.

This real-world data shows that a SOF-based regimen with SOF/RBV, SOF/DCV or SOF/DCV/RB is safe and effective for the treatment of genotype 2 CHC in Taiwan. However, this study has several limitations. It does not determine the efficacy of SOF/VEL for the treatment of genotype 2 CHC because at the time of this study, SOF/VEL had not been approved in Taiwan. Recently, two real-world studies to determine the effectiveness of brand-name or generic SOF/VEL for patients with genotype 2 CHC showed that the SVR12 rates are 94% and 98%, respectively [37,43] and a combination of SOF/VEL does not result in a higher SVR rate than a SOF/DCV regimen. SOF/RBV or SOF/DCV are important regimens for the treatment of genotype 2 CHC.

In conclusion, SOF/RBV, SOF/DCV or SOF/DCV/RBV for 12 weeks achieve very high SVR rates and are equally effective in the treatment of patients with genotype 2 CHC in Taiwan. A history of HCC results in a lower SVR rate for the SOF/RBV group.


Zdroje

1. Kao J.H.; Chen D.S. Changing disease burden of hepatocellular carcinoma in the Far East and Southeast Asia. Liver international. 2005, 25, 696–703. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15998418 doi: 10.1111/j.1478-3231.2005.01139.x 15998418

2. Heimbach J.; Kulik L.M.; Finn R.; Sirlin C.B.; Abecassis M.; Roberts L.R.; Zhu A.; Murad M.H.; Marrero J. Aasld guidelines for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. 2017 Jan 28. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28130846 doi: 10.1002/hep.29086 28130846

3. Fattovich G.; Stroffolini T.; Zagni I.; Donato F. Hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis: incidence and risk factors. Gastroenterology. 2004, 127, suppl 1. S35–50. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15508101 doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2004.09.014 15508101

4. Welsch C.; Zeuzem S. Will Interferon-Free Regimens Prevail? Gastroenterology. 2012, 142, 1351–1355. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22537442 doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2011.12.062 22537442

5. Schaefer, eak.; Chung R.T. Anti_Hepatitis C Virus Drugs in Development. Gastroenterology. 2012, 142, 1340–1350. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22537441 doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2012.02.015 22537441

6. AASLD-IDSA HCV Guidance Panel. Hepatitis C Guidance 2018 Update: AASLD-IDSA Recommendations for Testing, Managing, and Treating Hepatitis C Virus Infection. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2018, 67(10), 1477–92. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30215672 doi: 10.1093/cid/ciy585 30215672

7. Manns M.P.; Buti M.; Gane E.; Pawlotsky J.M.; Razavi H.; Terrault N.; et al. Hepatitis C virus infection. Nat Rev Dis Prim. 2017, 3, 17006. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28252637 doi: 10.1038/nrdp.2017.6 28252637

8. Van Der Meer A.J.; Veldt B.J.; Feld J.J.; Wedemeyer H.; Dufour J.F.; Lammert F.; et al. Association between sustained virological response and all-cause mortality among patients with chronic hepatitis C and advanced hepatic fibrosis. JAMA. 2012, 308, 2584–93. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23268517 doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.144878 23268517

9. Falade-Nwulia O.; Suarez-Cuervo C.; Nelson D.R.; Fried M.W.; Segal J.B.; Sulkowski M.S. Oral Direct-Acting Agent Therapy for Hepatitis C Virus Infection: A Systematic Review. Ann Intern Med. 2017 May 2, 166(9), 637–648. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28319996 doi: 10.7326/M16-2575 28319996

10. Cheung M.C.M.; Walker A.J.; Hudson B.E. Verma S.; McLauchlan J.; Mutimer D.J.; et al. Outcomes after successful direct-acting antiviral therapy for patients with chronic hepatitis C and decompensated cirrhosis. J Hepatol. 2016, 65, 741–7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27388925 doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2016.06.019 27388925

11. Jacobson I.M.; Gordon S.C.; Kowdley K.V.; et al. Sofosbuvir for hepatitis C genotype 2 or 3 in patients without treatment options. N Engl J Med. 2013, 368, 1867–1877. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23607593 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1214854 23607593

12. Zeuzem S.; Dusheiko G.M.; Salupere R.; et al. Sofosbuvir and ribavirin in HCV genotypes 2 and 3. N Engl J Med. 2014, 370, 1993–2001. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24795201 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1316145 24795201

13. Omata M.; Nishiguchi S.; Ueno Y.; Mochizuki H.; Izumi N,; Ikeda F. et al. Sofosbuvir plus ribavirin in Japanese patients with chronic genotype 2 HCV infection: an open-label, phase 3 trial. J Viral Hepat. 2014 Nov, 21(11), 762–8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25196837 doi: 10.1111/jvh.12312 25196837

14. Kao J.H.; Chien R.N.; Chang T.T.; Peng C.Y.; Hu T.H.; Lo G.H, et al. A phase 3b study of sofosbuvir plus ribavirin in Taiwanese patients with chronic genotype 2 hepatitis C virus infection. Liver Int. 2016 Aug, 36(8), 1101–7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26835876 doi: 10.1111/liv.13082 26835876

15. Tacke F.; Günther R.; Buggisch P.; Klinker H.; Schober A.; John C. et al., Treatment of HCV genotype 2 with sofosbuvir and ribavirin results in lower sustained virological response rates in real life than expected from clinical trials. Liver Int. 2017 Feb, 37(2), 205–211. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27428297 doi: 10.1111/liv.13206 27428297

16. Akahane T.; Kurosaki M.; Itakura J.; Tsuji K.; Joko K.; Kimura H. et al. Real-world efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir + ribavirin for hepatitis C genotype 2: A nationwide multicenter study by the Japanese Red Cross Liver Study Group. Hepatol Res. 2019 Mar, 49(3), 264–270. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30171740 doi: 10.1111/hepr.13246 30171740

17. Welzel T.M.; Nelson D.R.; Morelli G.; Di Bisceglie A.; Reddy R.K.;. HCV-TARGET Study Group. Effectiveness and safety of sofosbuvir plus ribavirin for the treatment of HCV genotype 2 infection: results of the real-world, clinical practice HCV-TARGET study. Gut. 2017 Oct, 66(10), 1844–1852. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27418632 doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-311609 27418632

18. Mangia A.; Susser S.; Piazzolla V.; Agostinacchio E.; De Stefano G.; Palmieri V. et al., Sofosbuvir and ribavirin for genotype 2 HCV infected patients with cirrhosis: A real life experience. J Hepatol. 2017 Apr, 66(4), 711–717. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27965158 doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2016.12.002 27965158

19. Kanda T1.; Nakamura M2.; Yasui S3.; Haga Y4.; Tawada A5.; Suzuki E6. Et al., Treatment of Real-World HCV Genotype 2-Infected Japanese Patients with Sofosbuvir plus Ribavirin. Biology (Basel). 2017 May 9, 6(2), pii: E30. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5485477/ doi: 10.3390/biology6020030 28486403

20. Sulkowski MS.; Gardiner DF.; Rodriguez-Torres M.; Reddy K.R.; Hassanein T.; Jacobson I, et al., Daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir for previously treated or untreated chronic HCV infection. N Engl J Med. 2014 Jan 16, 370(3), 211–21, doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1306218 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1306218 24428467

21. Zhou N.; Han Z.; Hartman-Neumann S.; DeGray B.; Ueland J.; Vellucci V.; Hernandez D.; McPhee F. Characterization of NS5A polymorphisms and their impact on response rates in patients with HCV genotype 2 treated with daclatasvir-based regimens. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016 Dec, 71(12), 3495–3505 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27605597 doi: 10.1093/jac/dkw336 27605597

22. Mangia A.; Arleo A.; Copetti M.; Miscio M.; Piazzolla V.; Santoro R. Squillante MM The combination of daclatasvir and sofosbuvir for curing genotype 2 patients who cannot tolerate ribavirin. Liver Int. 2016 Jul, 36(7), 971–6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26786792 doi: 10.1111/liv.13069 26786792

23. Wang J.H.; Changchien C.S.; Hung C.H.; Eng H.L.; Tung W.C.; Kee K.M.; et al. FibroScan and ultrasonography in the prediction of hepatic fibrosis in patients with chronic viral hepatitis. J Gastroenterol. 2009, 44, 439–46. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19308312 doi: 10.1007/s00535-009-0017-y 19308312

24. Sterling R.K.; Lissen E.; Clumeck N.; Sola R.; Correa M.C.; Montaner J.; et. al. Development of a simple noninvasive index to predict significant fibrosis patients with HIV/HCV co-infection. Hepatology. 2006, 43, 1317–1325. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16729309 doi: 10.1002/hep.21178 16729309

25. Bedossa P.; Poynard T. An algorithm for the grading of activity in chronic hepatitis C. The METAVIR Cooperative Study Group. Hepatology. 1996, 24, 289–293. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8690394 doi: 10.1002/hep.510240201 8690394

26. Lin D.Y.; Sheen I.S.; Chiu C.T.; Lin S.M.; Kuo Y.C.; Liaw Y.F. Ultrasonographic changes of early liver cirrhosis in chronic hepatitis B: a longitudinal study. J Clin Ultrasound. 1993 Jun, 21(5), 303–8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8514896 doi: 10.1002/jcu.1870210502 8514896

27. Heimbach J.K.; Kulik L.M.; Finn R.S.; Sirlin C.B.; Abecassis M.M.; Roberts L.R.; et al. AASLD guidelines for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. 2018, 67, 358–80. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28130846 doi: 10.1002/hep.29086 28130846

28. Omata M.; Cheng A.L.; Kokudo N.; Kudo M.; Lee J.M.; Jia J.; et al. Asia-Pacific clinical practice guidelines on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma: a 2017 update. Hepatol Int. 2017, 11, 317–70. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28620797 doi: 10.1007/s12072-017-9799-9 28620797

29. European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2018, 69, 182–236. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29628281 doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2018.03.019 29628281.

30. Kumar M, Jindal A, Sharma BC, Hamid SS, Dokmeci AK, Mamun-Al-Mahtab, et al.,. APASL consensus statements and recommendation on treatment of hepatitis C.Omata M1,2, Kanda T3, Wei L4, Yu ML5, Chuang WL6, Ibrahim A7, Lesmana CR8, Sollano J910 Hepatol Int. 2016 Sep;10(5):702–26. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2713047 doi: 10.1007/s12072-016-9717-6 27130427.

31. EASL Recommendations on Treatment of Hepatitis C 2018.European Association for the Study of the Liver. J Hepatol. 2018 Aug, 69(2), 461–511. https://easl.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/HepC-English-report.pdf doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2018.03.026 29650333

32. Backus L.I.; Belperio P.S.; Shahoumian T.A.; Loomis T.P.; Mole L.A. Effectiveness of sofosbuvir-based regimens in genotype 1 and 2 hepatitis C virus infection in 4026 U.S. Veterans. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2015, 42, 559–73. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26113432 doi: 10.1111/apt.13300 26113432

33. Zeuzem S.; Dusheiko G.M.; Salupere R.; Mangia A.; Flisiak R.; Hyland R.H.; et al. Sofosbuvir and ribavirin in HCV genotypes 2 and 3. N Engl J Med 2014, 370, 1993–2001. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1316145 24795201

34. Foster G.R.; Pianko S.; Brown A.; Forton D.; Nahass R.G.; George J.; et al. Efficacy of sofosbuvir plus ribavirin with or without peginterferon-alfa in patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 3 infection and treatment-experienced patients with cirrhosis and hepatitis C virus genotype 2 infection. Gastroenterology. 2015, 149, 1462–70. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26248087 doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.07.043 26248087

35. Cheng P.N.; Chiu Y.C,; Chien S.C.; Chiu H.C. Real-world effectiveness and safety of sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir with or without ribavirin for genotype 2 chronic hepatitis C in Taiwan. J Formos Med Assoc. 2019 May, 118(5), 907–913. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30316677 doi: 10.1016/j.jfma.2018.09.016 30316677

36. Wu S.H.; Chu C.J.; Su C.W.; Lin C.C.; Lee S.D.; Wang Y.J, et al., Daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir, with or without ribavirin, is highly effective for all kinds of genotype-2 chronic hepatitis-C infection in Taiwan. J Chin Med Assoc. 2019 in press. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31356562 doi: 10.1097/JCMA.0000000000000148 31356562

37. Belperio P.S.; Shahoumian T.A.; Loomis T.P.; Mole L.A.; Backus L.I. Real-world effectiveness of daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir and velpatasvir/sofosbuvir in hepatitis C genotype 2 and 3. J Hepatol. 2019 Jan, 70(1), 15–23. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30266283 doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2018.09.018 30266283

38. Swallow E.; Song J.; Yuan Y.; Kalsekar A.; Kelley C.; Peeples M, et al.,Daclatasvir and Sofosbuvir Versus Sofosbuvir and Ribavirin in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis C Coinfected with HIV: A Matching-adjusted Indirect Comparison. Clin Ther. 2016 Feb, 38(2), 404–12. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26839044 doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2015.12.017 26839044

39. Prenner S.B.; VanWagner L.B.; Flamm S.L.; Salem R.; Lewandowski R.J.; Kulik L. Hepatocellular carcinoma decreases the chance of successful hepatitis C virus therapy with direct-acting antivirals. J Hepatol. 2017 Jun, 66(6), 1173–1181. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2017.01.020 Epub 2017 Feb 2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28161470 28161470

40. Beste L.A.; Green P.K.; Berry K.; Kogut M.J.; Allison S.K.; Ioannou G.N. Effectiveness of hepatitis C antiviral treatment in a USA cohort of veteran patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2017 Jul, 67(1), 32–39. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28267622 doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2017.02.027 28267622

41. Yen Y.H.; et al. Active hepatocellular carcinoma is an independent risk factor of direct-acting antiviraltreatment failure: a retrospective study with prospectively collected data. Plos one. 2019 in press. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31581209 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222605 31581209

42. Huang CF, Yeh ML, Huang CI, Liang PC, Lin YH, Hsieh MY, et al., Equal treatment efficacy of direct-acting antivirals in patients with chronic hepatitis C and hepatocellular carcinoma? A prospective cohort study.BMJ Open. 2019 May 5;9(5):e026703. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6501994 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026703 31061041

43. Liu C.H.; Sun H.Y.; Liu C.J.; et al. Generic velpatasvir plus sofosbuvir for hepatitis C virus infection in patients with or without human immunodeficiency virus coinfection. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2018, 47, 1690–8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29665069 doi: 10.1111/apt.14647 29665069


Článok vyšiel v časopise

PLOS One


2020 Číslo 1
Najčítanejšie tento týždeň
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
Kurzy

Zvýšte si kvalifikáciu online z pohodlia domova

Získaná hemofilie - Povědomí o nemoci a její diagnostika
nový kurz

Eozinofilní granulomatóza s polyangiitidou
Autori: doc. MUDr. Martina Doubková, Ph.D.

Všetky kurzy
Prihlásenie
Zabudnuté heslo

Zadajte e-mailovú adresu, s ktorou ste vytvárali účet. Budú Vám na ňu zasielané informácie k nastaveniu nového hesla.

Prihlásenie

Nemáte účet?  Registrujte sa

#ADS_BOTTOM_SCRIPTS#