Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND & AIMS:Renal clearance is the major elimination pathway for sofosbuvir (SOF). We assessed the safety and efficacy of SOF-containing regimens in patients with varying baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). METHODS:HCV-TARGET database is a multicentre, longitudinal 'real-world' treatment cohort. RESULTS:A total of 1789 patients [genotypes 1 (72%), 2 (17%) 3 (9%), 4-6 (2%)] had baseline eGFR determination: 73 with eGFR≤45 (18 with eGFR≤30, 5 on dialysis) were compared to 1716 with eGFR>45 ml/min/1.73 m(2) . Patients with baseline eGFR≤45 vs. >45 differed in being female (55% vs. 36%), age ≥65 years (24% vs. 16%), Black race (22% vs. 12%), having cirrhosis with decompensation (73% vs. 24%) and being post-transplant (49% vs. 10%), all P < 0.05. All patients with eGFR≤45 were treated with SOF 400 mg/day (including those on haemodialysis) and had median starting ribavirin (RBV) dose of 800 mg (IQR: 400-1200). Sustained virologic response (SVR) frequencies were similar across eGFR groups, ranging from 82-83%. Patients with eGFR ≤45 more frequently experienced anaemia, worsening renal function and serious AEs (all P < 0.05), and these associations persisted when limiting analysis to RBV-free regimens. Patients with baseline eGFR≤30 and eGFR 31-45 had similar frequencies of efficacy and safety outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:Sustained viral clearance was achieved in 83% of patients with renal impairment (eGFR ≤45 ml/min/1.73 m(2) ) treated with SOF-containing regimens. However, these patients had higher rates of anaemia, worsening renal dysfunction and serious adverse events regardless of use of RBV. Patient with renal impairment require close monitoring and should be treated by providers extensively experienced with SOF-containing regimens.

BACKGROUND:Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in patients with stage 4-5 chronic kidney disease increases the risk of death and renal graft failure, yet patients with hepatitis C and chronic kidney disease have few treatment options. This study assesses an all-oral, ribavirin-free regimen in patients with HCV genotype 1 infection and stage 4-5 chronic kidney disease. METHODS:In this phase 3 randomised study of safety and observational study of efficacy, patients with HCV genotype 1 infection and chronic kidney disease (stage 4-5 with or without haemodialysis dependence) were randomly assigned to receive grazoprevir (100 mg, NS3/4A protease inhibitor) and elbasvir (50 mg, NS5A inhibitor; immediate treatment group) or placebo (deferred treatment group) once daily for 12 weeks. Randomisation was done centrally with an interactive voice response system. An additional cohort of patients who were not randomised received the same regimen open-label and underwent intensive pharmacokinetic sampling. The primary efficacy outcome was a non-randomised comparison of sustained virological response at 12 weeks (SVR12) after the end of therapy for the combined immediate treatment group and the pharmacokinetic population with a historical control. The primary safety outcome was a randomised comparison between the immediate treatment group and the deferred treatment group. After 4 weeks of follow-up (study week 16), unmasking occurred and patients in the deferred treatment group received grazoprevir and elbasvir. The primary efficacy hypothesis was tested at a two-sided significance level (type I error) of 0·05 using an exact test for a binomial proportion. Safety event rates were compared between immediate treatment and deferred treatment groups using the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with baseline dialysis status as the strata. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02092350. FINDINGS/RESULTS:224 patients were randomly assigned to the immediate treatment group with grazoprevir and elbasvir (n=111) or the deferred treatment group (n=113), and 11 were assigned to the intensive pharmacokinetic population. Overall, 179 (76%) were haemodialysis-dependent, 122 (52%) had HCV genotype 1a infection, 189 (80%) were HCV treatment-naive, 14 (6%) were cirrhotic, and 108 (46%) were African American. Of the 122 patients receiving grazoprevir and elbasvir, six were excluded from the primary efficacy analysis for non-virological reasons (death, lost-to-follow-up [n=2], non-compliance, patient withdrawal, and withdrawal by physician for violent behaviour). No patients in the combined immediate treatment group and intensive pharmacokinetic population and five (4%) in the deferred treatment group discontinued because of an adverse event. Most common adverse events were headache, nausea, and fatigue, occurring at similar frequencies in patients receiving active and placebo drugs. SVR12 in the combined immediate treatment group and intensive pharmacokinetic population was 99% (95% CI 95·3-100·0; 115/116), with one relapse 12 weeks after end of treatment when compared with a historical control of 45%, based on meta-analyses of interferon-based regimens used in clinical trials of patients infected with HCV who are on haemodialysis. INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSIONS:Once-daily grazoprevir and elbasvir for 12 weeks had a low rate of adverse events and was effective in patients infected with HCV genotype 1 and stage 4-5 chronic kidney disease. FUNDING/BACKGROUND:Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.

Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is rapidly becoming the leading indication for liver transplantation (LT) in the United States. While post-transplantation outcomes are similar to other indications for transplant, recent evidence has suggested that reduction in risk factors for post-transplant metabolic syndrome may impose a significant survival benefit in this patient population. Cardiovascular mortality is the leading cause of death following transplantation for NASH. While pre-transplant pharmacologic and surgical approaches have been utilized to reduce cardiovascular risk factors following transplantation, the effectiveness of these treatment approaches in the post-transplant setting is poorly defined. Studies are urgently needed in the treatment of this rapidly growing population.

BACKGROUND:New treatments for hepatitis C (HCV) infection hold great promise for cure, but numerous challenges to diagnosing, establishing care, and receiving therapy exist. There are limited data on insurance authorization for these medications. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:We performed a retrospective chart review of patients receiving sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (SOF/LED) from October 11-December 31, 2014 to determine rates and timing of drug authorization. We also determined predictors of approval, and those factors associated with faster decision and approval times. RESULTS:Of 174 patients prescribed HCV therapy during this period, 129 requests were made for SOF/LED, of whom 100 (77.5%) received initial approval, and an additional 17 patients (13.9%) ultimately received approval through the appeals process. Faster approval times were seen in patients with Child-Pugh Class B disease (14.4 vs. 24.7 days, p = 0.048). A higher proportion of patients were initially approved in those with Medicare/Medicaid coverage (92.2% vs. 71.4%, p = 0.002) and those with baseline viral load ≥ 6 million IU/mL (84.1% vs. 62.5%, p = 0.040). Linear regression modeling identified advanced fibrosis, high Model of End Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, and female gender as significant predictors of shorter decision and approval times. On logistic regression, Medicare/Medicaid coverage (OR 5.96, 95% CI 1.66-21.48) and high viral load (OR 4.52, 95% CI 1.08-19.08) were significant predictors for initial approval. CONCLUSIONS:Early analysis of real-world drug authorization outcomes between October-December 2014 reveals that nearly one in four patients are initially denied access to SOF/LED upon initial prescription, although most patients are eventually approved through appeal, which delays treatment initiation. Having Medicare/Medicaid and advanced liver disease resulted in a higher likelihood of approval as well as earlier decision and approval times. More studies are needed to determine factors resulting in higher likelihood of denial and to evaluate approval rates and times after implementation of restrictive prior authorization guidelines.