Faculty Bibliography

Despite the clinical success in the real-world of all oral hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapy with response rates approaching that seen in the clinical trials, access has been limited by many payers with discussion of prioritization of treatment based upon AASLD guidelines. We evaluated patients in the TRIO network who were prescribed sofosbuvir (SOF)-based regimens to determine reasons for not starting treatment. Trio Health is a disease management company that works in partnership with academic medical centres, community physicians and specialty pharmacies in the United States to optimize care for HCV. Data for 3841 patients prescribed a sofosbuvir-containing regimen between December 2013 and September 2014 were obtained through this programme. Of the entire group, 315 (8%) patients did not start the prescribed sofosbuvir-containing therapy. A total of 141 (45%) of the nonstart patients had a commercial plan as their primary insurance, 137 (44%) were primarily covered by Medicaid, 17 (5%) were primarily covered by Medicare, and 20 (6%) were either without coverage or coverage was not specified. Reasons for nonstarts were varied and overlapping. Only 15 patients (5% of nonstarts) did not start because they were unreachable or failed to complete required testing. Another 39 patients who did not start (12%) were following their physicians' direction to either wait for new treatment options or to hold treatment for an unspecified reason. Insurance-related processes and financial reasons accounted for 254 (81%) of the 315 nonstarts. The remaining 7 (2%) patients did not have a specified reason for not starting treatment. Nonstart rates were highest in the Medicaid-covered population at 35%. Medicare and Commercial nonstart rates were 2% and 6%, respectively. In a matched comparison, patients with commercial coverage were 6.5 times as likely to start SOF-based therapy compared to patients with Medicaid. Despite high SVR rates of SOF-based regimens in clinical practice, there are still barriers to access to care. In fact, almost half of the nonstart patients had advanced fibrosis scores (F3 or F4) and should have been prioritized to start treatment. As better treatment for HCV with high efficacy and low side effect rates become available, the disparity in access to treatment, as evidenced by the high nonstart rate in the Medicaid-covered group, must be resolved.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Establishing accurate non-invasive methods of liver fibrosis quantification remains a major unmet need. Here, we assessed the diagnostic value of a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI and magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) in comparison with transient elastography (TE) and blood tests [including ELF (Enhanced Liver Fibrosis) and APRI] for liver fibrosis detection. METHODS: n this single center cross-sectional study, we prospectively enrolled 60 subjects with liver disease who underwent multiparametric MRI (DWI, DCE-MRI and MRE), TE and blood tests. Correlation was assessed between non-invasive modalities and histopathologic findings including stage, grade, and collagen content, while accounting for covariates such as age, sex, BMI, HCV status and MRI-derived fat and iron content. ROC curve analysis evaluated the performance of each technique for detection of moderate-to-advanced liver fibrosis (F2-F4) and advanced fibrosis (F3-F4). RESULTS: MRE provided the strongest correlation with fibrosis stage (r=0.66, p <0.001), inflammation grade (r=0.52, p <0.001) and collagen content (r=0.53, p=0.036). For detection of moderate-to-advanced fibrosis (F2-F4), AUCs were 0.78, 0.82, 0.72, 0.79, 0.71 for MRE, TE, DCE-MRI, DWI, APRI, respectively. For detection of advanced fibrosis (F3-F4), AUCs were 0.94, 0.77, 0.79, 0.79, 0.70, respectively CONCLUSIONS: MRE provides the highest correlation with histopathologic markers and yields high diagnostic performance for detection of advanced liver fibrosis and cirrhosis, compared to DWI, DCE-MRI, TE and serum markers

OBJECTIVES: Studies of hepatitis C virus (HCV) regimens have documented substantially reduced effectiveness in sustained virologic response (SVR) in the context of real-world clinical practice compared with clinical trials. Real-world and clinical trial SVR and cost-per-SVR data have not been reported for the all-oral, peginterferon-free and ribavirin (RBV)-free ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF) regimen. Our objective was to compare the rates of SVR achievement and cost per SVR between pooled data from clinical studies of LDV/SOF and from real-world clinical practice. METHODS: Data were derived from the Hepatitis C Therapeutic Registry and Research Network (HCV-TARGET), a real-world, multicenter, prospective, observational study; and from the TRIO Network, a retrospective database of HCV-treated patients. The 1-year cost per SVR was calculated as the total cost of an SVR ([cost of treatment regimen, adverse events, and monitoring costs] per SVR) during the first year of treatment. RESULTS: After 12 weeks, the SVR rates obtained in real-world studies ranged from 94% to 98%, comparing favorably with the SVRs achieved in the ION-1 and ION-3 trials (94% and 95%-99% with 8 and 12 weeks of RBV-free therapy, respectively). A single SVR, on average, cost $84,989 among patients enrolled in the ION-3 trial, with higher costs ($101,204) among patients with compensated cirrhosis compared with noncirrhotic patients ($81,668). In the pooled TARGET/TRIO population, the average cost of an SVR was $84,770, with costs of $101,380 and $81,368 in patients with compensated cirrhosis and patients without cirrhosis, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike the results obtained with prior HCV regimens, this study suggests that similar SVR rates are achieved with LDV/SOF in clinical trial-based studies and real-world studies. Further, achieving an SVR in real-world clinical practice was not associated with excess costs.