Faculty Bibliography

Many patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) are on prolonged proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy and wish to remain on PPI therapy once treatment for HCV starts. A preliminary report recently suggested decrease rates of sustained virological response (SVR) for patients taking concomitant PPI and ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF). We sought to determine the effect of PPI use on the rate of SVR in a real-world cohort of 1,979 patients with chronic HCV treated with LDV/SOF. We collected clinical data and pharmacy dispensing records on patients taking 8, 12, or 24 weeks of LDV/SOF +/- ribavirin (RBV). The primary outcome was sustained virological response at 12 weeks after treatment completion (SVR12) in a per-protocol analysis in order to determine the effect of PPI use adjusted for confounders. Statistical adjustment was performed in propensity-matched analysis. Among treatment completers, SVR12 was achieved in 441 (97.1%) of PPI recipients compared with 1,497 (98.2%) in PPI nonrecipients (P = 0.19). Neither low- nor high-dose PPI was associated with decreased SVR, although patients taking twice-daily PPI achieved a lower SVR12 rate (91.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 77.0-97.0; P = 0.046). After propensity matching for PPI use, there were no significant associations between SVR12 and any dose or frequency of PPI use. However, in a sensitivity analysis focusing on patients with cirrhosis, twice-daily PPI use was associated with lower odds ratio for SVR12 (0.11; 95% CI, 0.02-0.59). CONCLUSION: These data from a cohort of real-world patients receiving hepatitis C antibody therapy with LDF/SOF +/- RBV support the prescription labeling suggesting that patients take no more than low-dose (20-mg omeprazole equivalents) PPI daily. (Hepatology 2016;64:1893-1899).

BACKGROUND: New direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy has dramatically increased cure rates for patients infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV), but has also substantially raised treatment costs. AIM: The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the therapeutic benefit and net costs (i.e. efficiency frontier) and the quality-adjusted cost of care associated with the evolution of treatment regimens for patients with HCV genotype 1 in the United States. DESIGN: A decision-analytic Markov model. DATA SOURCE: Published literature and clinical trial data. TIME HORIZON: Life Time. PERSPECTIVE: Third-party payer. INTERVENTION: This study compared four approved regimens in treatment-naive genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C patients, including pegylated interferon and ribavirin (PR), first generation triple therapy (boceprevir + PR and telaprevir + PR), second generation triple therapy (sofosbuvir + PR and simeprevir + PR) and all-oral DAA regimens (ledipasvir/sofosbuvir and ombitasvir + paritaprevir/ritonavir + dasabuvir +/- ribavirin). OUTCOME MEASURE: Quality-adjusted cost of care (QACC). QACC was defined as the increase in treatment cost minus the increase in the patient's quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) when valued at $50,000 per QALY. RESULTS: All-oral therapy improved the average sustained virologic response (SVR) rate to 96%, thereby offsetting the high drug acquisition cost of $85,714, which resulted in the highest benefit based on the efficiency frontier. Furthermore, while oral therapies increased HCV drug costs by $48,350, associated QALY gains decreased quality-adjusted cost of care by $14,120 compared to dual therapy. When the value of a QALY was varied from $100,000 to $300,000, the quality adjusted cost of care compared to dual therapy ranged from - $21,234 to - $107,861, - $89,007 to - $293,130, - $176,280 to - $500,599 for first generation triple, second generation triple, and all-oral therapies, respectively. Primary efficacy and safety measurements for drug regimens were sourced from clinical trials data rather than a real-world setting. Factors such as individual demographic characteristics, comorbidities and alcohol consumption of the individual patients treated may alter disease progression but were not captured in this analysis. CONCLUSION: New DAA treatments provide short-term and long-term clinical and economic value to society. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Gilead Sciences, Inc.

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: Patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) monoinfection achieve high sustained virological response (SVR) rates on sofosbuvir (SOF)-containing regimens. Real world data on patients coinfected with HCV and the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treated with SOF-based regimens are lacking. METHODS: This observational cohort study included HIV/HCV coinfected adults with genotype 1 HCV initiating treatment with a SOF-containing regimen between April, 2014, and December, 2014, (n= 89) at the Mount Sinai Hospital or the Brooklyn Hospital Center. The primary outcome was sustained virological response (SVR) at 12 weeks after the end of treatment. The secondary outcomes were risk factors for treatment failure, serious adverse events and side effects. A post-hoc per protocol analysis of SVR was performed on patients who completed treatment and follow-up. RESULTS: In an intention-to-treat analysis, SVR rates were 76% (31/41) for simeprevir (SMV)/SOF, 94% (16/17) for SMV/SOF/ribavirin (RBV), and 52% (16/31) for SOF/RBV. The SVR rates of SMV/SOF/RBV and SMV/SOF did not differ significantly in this small study (p=0.15); however the SVR rate of SMV/SOF/RBV was higher than that of SOF/RBV (p<0.01). In a per-protocol analysis, SMV/SOF/RBV had a higher SVR rate than SOF/RBV: 100% (16/16) versus 57% (16/28) (p <0.01). The most commonly reported adverse effects were rash, pruritus, fatigue and insomnia. One patient, who had decompensated cirrhosis prior to treatment initiation, died while receiving SMV/SOF. CONCLUSIONS: SMV/SOF+/-RBV is an effective and safe option with minimal adverse effects for most HIV positive patients with genotype 1 HCV. SMV should be avoided in patients with decompensated cirrhosis.

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