Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Treatment of genotype 1 hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection with combination direct acting anti-virals is associated with very high rates of sustained virological response (SVR). Daily combination of ledipasvir and sofosbuvir for 12 weeks is approved for the treatment of genotype 1 HCV patients, though noncirrhotic patients who are naive to treatment with a baseline HCV RNA <6 million IU/mL can be treated for 8 weeks. This guidance stemmed from a post hoc analysis of the ION 3 clinical trial, which demonstrated similar SVR for patients treated with ledipasvir and sofosbuvir with or without ribavirin for 8 or 12 weeks. AIM: To compare the SVR for 8 weeks vs 12 weeks of ledipasvir and sofosbuvir in HCV infected patients in a real-world setting. METHODS: We performed an observational real-world cohort study of treatment success following 8 or 12 weeks of ledipasvir and sofosbuvir for treatment-naive genotype 1 HCV patients. RESULTS: A total of 826 patients were treated for either 8 (n=252) or 12 weeks (n=574) with ledipasvir and sofosbuvir and achieved SVR rate of 95.3% and there was no statistical difference in SVR rates in the two groups irrespective of any clinical or virological variables. CONCLUSIONS: In treatment-naive HCV genotype 1 patients, SVR was 95% in those treated for either 8 weeks or 12 weeks with ledipasvir and sofosbuvir. 8 week ledipasvir and sofosbuvir can reduce costs without compromising outcomes for those patients who qualify for such regimen.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: All-oral regimens are associated with high cure rates in hepatitis C virus-genotype 1 (HCV-GT1) patients. Our aim was to assess the value of cure to the society for treating HCV infection. METHODS: Markov model for HCV-GT1 projected long-term health outcomes, life years, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. The model compared second-generation triple (sofosbuvir+pegylated interferon+ribavirin [PR] and simeprevir+PR) and all-oral (ledipasvir/sofosbuvir and ombitasvir+paritaprevir/ritonavir+dasabuvir+/-ribavirin) therapies with no treatment. Sustained virological response rates were based on Phase III RCTs. We assumed that 80% and 95% of HCV-GT1 patients were eligible for second-generation triple and all-oral regimens. Transition probabilities, utility and mortality were based on literature review. The value of cure was calculated by the difference in the savings from the economic gains associated with additional QALYs. RESULTS: Model estimated 1.52 million treatment-naive HCV-GT1 patients in the US. Treating all eligible HCV-GT1 patients with second-generation triple and all-oral therapies resulted in 3.2 million and 4.8 million additional QALYs gained compared to no treatment respectively. Using $50,000 as value of QALY, these regimens lead to savings of $185 billion and $299 billion; costs of these regimens were $109 billion and $128 billion. The value of cure with second-generation triple and all-oral regimens was $55 billion and $111 billion, when we conservatively assumed only drug costs. Cost savings were greater for HCV-GT1 patient cured with cirrhosis compared to patients without cirrhosis. CONCLUSIONS: The recent evolution of regimens for HCV GT1 has increased efficacy and value of cure.

Chronic liver diseases (CLDs), due to chronic hepatitis C; hepatitis B; nonalcoholic fatty liver diseases (NAFLD); and alcoholic liver disease, are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Early identification of patients with cirrhosis at high risk of progression to liver-related complications may facilitate timely care and improve outcomes. With risks and misclassification associated with invasive tests, such as liver biopsy, noninvasive imaging modalities for liver fibrosis assessment have gained popularity. Therefore, the American Gastroenterological Association prioritized clinical guidelines on the role of elastography in CLDs, focusing on vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) and magnetic resonance elastography (MRE). To inform these clinical guidelines, the current technical review was developed in accordance with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework for diagnostic accuracy studies. This technical review addresses focused questions related to: (1) comparative diagnostic performance of VCTE and MRE relative to nonproprietary, serum-based fibrosis markers for detection of cirrhosis in patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), NAFLD, and alcoholic liver diseases; (2) performance of specific VCTE-defined liver stiffness cutoffs as a test replacement strategy (to replace liver biopsy) in making key decisions in the management of patients with CLDs; and (3) performance of specific VCTE-defined liver stiffness cutoffs as a triage test to identify patients with low likelihood of harboring high-risk esophageal varices (EVs) or having clinically significant portal hypertension (for presurgical risk stratification). This technical review does not address performance of other noninvasive modalities for assessing fibrosis (eg, acoustic radiation force pulse imaging or shear wave elastography) or steatosis (controlled attenuation parameter or magnetic resonance imaging-estimated proton density fat fraction).

AIM/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate new therapies for hepatitis C virus (HCV), data about real-world outcomes are needed. METHODS:Outcomes of 223 patients with genotype 1 HCV who started telaprevir- or boceprevir-based triple therapy (May 2011-March 2012) at the Mount Sinai Medical Center were analyzed. Human immunodeficiency virus-positive patients and patients who received a liver transplant were excluded. Factors associated with sustained virological response (SVR24) and relapse were analyzed by univariable and multivariable logistic regression as well as classification and regression trees. Fast virological response (FVR) was defined as undetectable HCV RNA at week-4 (telaprevir) or week-8 (boceprevir). RESULTS:/μL were the strongest predictor of SVR by classification and regression tree. Relapse occurred in 25% (27/104) of patients with an end-of-treatment response and was associated with non-FVR (OR = 4.77, 95%CI: 1.68-13.56), HCV sub-genotype 1a (OR = 5.20; 95%CI: 1.40-18.97), and FIB-4 ≥ 3.25 (OR = 2.77; 95%CI: 1.07-7.22). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The SVR rate was 42% with telaprevir- or boceprevir-based triple therapy in real-world practice. Low platelets and advanced fibrosis were associated with treatment failure and relapse.

The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), and the treatment of HCV with pegylated interferon and ribavirin (IFN/RBV) have been associated with neurocognitive and psychiatric abnormalities. The goal of this research was to prospectively evaluate neurocognitive functioning among a group of HCV mono-infected and HIV/HCV co-infected patients during the first 24 weeks of IFN/RBV treatment while accounting for practice effects, normal variations in change over time, and variations in IFN/RBV treatment exposure. Forty-four HCV mono-infected and 30 HIV/HCV co-infected patients were enrolled in a prospective study of patients beginning on IFN/RBV for chronic HCV infection. Patients were administered a depression inventory, a measure of fatigue, a structured psychiatric interview, and a neurocognitive battery at baseline and 24 weeks after initiation of treatment. Analyses were conducted to explore possible associations between neurocognitive functioning and the following: HIV/HCV co-infection vs. HCV mono-infection, IFN and RBV treatment exposure, psychiatric status, liver disease stage, and other medical characteristics. At baseline, there were no significant differences between the two groups' neuropsychiatric or neurocognitive function other than the mono-infected group had significantly higher reports of fatigue (p = 0.033). Over the course of 24 weeks of treatment after controlling for practice effects, the HIV/HCV co-infected patients experienced significantly greater declines in memory (t(56) = 2.14, p = 0.037) and global neurocognitive functioning (t(53) = 2.28, p = 0.027). In a well-characterized sample of mono-infected and co-infected patients, it appears that persons with HIV/HCV co-infection are potentially more vulnerable to neurocognitive sequalae during HCV treatment.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate change in chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) disease and the economic burden associated with comprehensive treatment of the chronic HCV-infected Medicaid population. STUDY DESIGN: Decision-analytic Markov model. METHODS: Treatment-naive patients with genotype 1 chronic HCV were followed over a lifetime horizon from the third-party payer perspective. Patients entered the model insured under Medicaid and were treated under state-specific restrictions by Metavir fibrosis stage (base case) or all treated (all-patient strategy) with an approved all-oral regimen (ledipasvir/sofosbuvir [LDV/SOF] for 8 weeks or 12 weeks, depending on cirrhosis status, viral load, and state-specific LDV/SOF restrictions). Untreated patients were assumed to age into Medicare at 65 years, where they were treated with LDV/SOF without restriction by fibrotic stage. RESULTS: The sustained virologic response (SVR) rate of the current Medicaid LDV/SOF restriction strategy was 75.2% versus 95.9% if all LDV/SOF-eligible patients were treated under Medicaid. Treating all eligible Medicaid patients with LDV/SOF, regardless of fibrotic stage, was projected to result in 36,752 fewer cases of cirrhosis; 1739 fewer liver transplants; 8169 fewer cases of hepatocellular carcinoma; 16,173 fewer HCV-related deaths; 0.84 additional life-years per patient; and 1.03 additional quality-adjusted life-years per patient. Treating all Medicaid patients with chronic HCV using LDV/SOF resulted in a 39.4% ($3.8 billion) savings and decreased the proportion of total costs attributable to downstream costs of care to 18.3%. CONCLUSIONS: A "treat all" strategy in a Medicaid population resulted in superior SVRs, substantial reductions in downstream negative clinical outcomes, and considerable cost savings. Current restrictive state policies regarding HCV treatment in Medicaid populations must be reassessed in light of these data.