Dataset Information

Effectiveness and safety of elbasvir/grazoprevir in Korean patients with hepatitis C virus infection: a nationwide real-world study.

ABSTRACT:

Background/aim

This study aimed to establish the real-world effectiveness and safety of grazoprevir/elbasvir (EBR/GZR) therapy in South Korea.

Methods

A total of 242 patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 or 4 infection who started EBR/GZR were consecutively enrolled from seven tertiary hospitals. Retrospective analysis of the fractions of patients that achieved sustained virological response (SVR) was performed, and the incidence of adverse events was noted.

Results

The mean age of enrolled patients was 59.0 ± 12.6 years and 47.5% were males. Patients with HCV genotype 1b accounted for 93.8% (n = 227), and patients with HCV of unspecified genotype 1 accounted for 5.8% (n = 14). Hypertension was the most common comorbid disease (29.8%) followed by diabetes (22.7%) and chronic kidney disease (CKD, 12.4%). SVR rates of treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients were 85.5% (182/213) and 93.1% (27/29), respectively, in the intention-to-treat analyses, whereas in the per-protocol analyses, those were 97.8% (179/183) and 100% (28/28), respectively. Fewer patients with HCV genotype 1 of unspecified subtype achieved SVR (81.8%, n = 11) compared to the patients with SVR infected with genotype 1b (99%, n = 198, p < 0.001). All patients with CKD showed SVR. Itching (12%) and dyspepsia (4.1%) were common adverse events. Of the four patients who discontinued the antiviral therapy, one experienced mild fatigue but neither treatment withdrawal was because of an adverse event.

Conclusion

EBR/GZR showed high real-world effectiveness and safety in Korean patients with chronic HCV infection regardless of the previous antiviral treatment, liver cirrhosis, or CKD status.

SUBMITTER: Jang ES

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8009154 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionPangenotypic direct-acting antivirals are expected to cure hepatitis C virus (HCV) in more than 95% of treated patients. However, data on the effectiveness and safety of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL) in Taiwan are limited. This study aims to characterize the patient population in the nationwide Taiwan Association for the Study of the Liver (TASL) HCV Registry and evaluate treatment outcome in Taiwanese patients receiving SOF/VEL.MethodsThis study was a retrospective-prospective, observational, multicenter, real-world analysis. Adults with chronic hepatitis C were treated with SOF/VEL 400/100 mg ± ribavirin for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was sustained virologic response 12 weeks after end of therapy (SVR12). Factors associated with not achieving SVR12 were evaluated using logistic regression and covariate analysis. Safety was also assessed.ResultsIn total, 3480 patients were included: 86.8% genotype 1/2, 2.8% genotype 3, 0.1% genotype 4/5, 9.6% genotype 6; unclassified, 0.8%; 12.2% compensated cirrhosis; 3.3% decompensated cirrhosis; and 15.8% chronic kidney disease. Overall SVR12 rate was 99.4% (genotype 1, 99.5%; genotype 2, 99.4%; genotype 3, 96.9%; genotype 4, 100%; genotype 6, 99.7%). SVR12 rates among patients with compensated cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, and chronic kidney disease stages 4-5 were 99.5%, 100%, and 100%, respectively. There were 21 patients (0.6%) who did not achieve SVR12. Factors associated with failure were treatment adherence below 60%, high viral load, and genotype 3 (p < 0.001, p = 0.028, and p = 0.001, respectively). Adverse events occurred in 10% of patients; 0.6% were serious and one was related to treatment. Treatment discontinuation occurred in 0.3% of patients; none were treatment related. The estimated glomerular filtration rate remained stable throughout treatment and follow-up, regardless of baseline values and cirrhosis status.ConclusionSOF/VEL was highly effective and well tolerated in Taiwanese patients, irrespective of viral genotype, liver disease severity, and comorbidities.

Project description:Objective This study aims to systematically review recent economic evaluations of elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR) for chronic hepatitis C (CHC), to critically appraise the reporting quality and to summarize the results. Methods A literature search was undertaken using Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, EconLit, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, and Chongqing VIP to identify original articles containing economic evaluations of EBR/GZR for CHC published between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2020. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement was used to assess the quality of reporting of the articles. Results Of 93 articles identified, 13 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These studies were conducted in 4 countries, and 8 active interventions were assessed. The target population was patients infected with CHC genotype 1 infection in all studies. Eight out of 13 studies that compared EBR/GZR vs. other direct antiviral agents suggested that EBR/GZR was generally more cost-effective or dominant than daclatasvir/asunaprevir (DCV/ASV), sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL), ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF), ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir + dasabuvir (3D) but not more cost-effective than glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB). Two studies from China and one study from the USA that compared EBR/GZR vs. pegylated interferon and ribavirin (PegIFN/RBV) consistently indicated that EBR/GZR was generally more cost-effective than PegIFN/RBV. One study from Italy compared EBR/GZR with SOF + PegIFN/RBV and suggested that EBR/GZR had a lower cost and higher effectiveness. One study from France and one study from the USA confirmed that compared with non-therapy for patients with chronic kidney disease, EBR/GZR was cost-effective at commonly accepted current standards. All included studies were of good quality of reporting, with an average score of 21.9 (range 19–23). Conclusion EBR/GZR for CHC genotype 1 might be cost-effective or dominant compared with PegIFN/RBV and other direct antiviral agents (SOF/VEL, 3D, DCV/ASV, LDF/SOF) or non-therapy. However, under certain assumptions, EBR/GZR was not a cost-effective alternative for CHC patients vs. GLE/PIB.

Project description:Purpose:People chronically infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) have diminished patient-reported outcomes (PROs). This study aimed to compare the impact of elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR) treatment versus sofosbuvir with pegylated interferon and ribavirin (SOF/PR) on changes in PROs: 1) during the treatment period and 2) at posttreatment follow-up. Patients and methods:PRO data collected during the Phase III C-EDGE Head-2-Head (H2H) open-label study was analyzed. In this trial, patients infected with HCV were randomized 1:1 to receive either EBR/GZR or SOF/PR for 12 weeks. Patients self-administered the Short Form-36 version 2 (SF-36v2®) Health Survey Acute (1-week recall) Form and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue) Scale at baseline, during treatment, and posttreatment. Between-group differences in mean change of PRO scores from baseline were estimated during the treatment period and also at the posttreatment follow-up. Effect sizes were calculated to evaluate if the detected change in mean PRO scores is clinically meaningful between groups. Results:There were 255 patients (99.2% White, 54.1% female, 74.9% treatment naïve) included in the analysis. During the treatment period, significant declines in SF-36v2 scores were observed across all domains for the SOF/PR group. Compared to the SOF/PR group, the EBR/GZR group reported more improvement in scores across all SF-36v2 domain scores at the end of the treatment period. At treatment week 12, the between-group differences for 6 out of the 8 domain scores for these patients reflected at least moderate effects (effect sizes >0.5). No significant between-group differences in change in SF-36v2 scores from baseline were detected posttreatment. The decline in SF-36v2 scores observed during the treatment period for the SOF/PR group returned to near baseline scores or above posttreatment. Treatment with EBR/GZR did not impact fatigue scores, but treatment with SOF/PR led to increased fatigue scores during treatment which resolved by posttreatment follow-up week 12. Conclusion:This study demonstrated that HCV treatment with EBR/GZR resulted in a significantly better PRO profile as compared to SOF/PR. PROs are an important consideration as worsening PROs experienced during treatment may negatively influence adherence and ultimately contribute to an unfavorable clinical outcome. Clinicaltrialsgov Identifier:NCT02358044.

Project description:Background: The direct-acting antiviral (DAA) agents are widely used to treat hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype (GT) 1 infection, while it may cause severe liver damage. The objectives of the study were to evaluate the incidence of drug-induced liver injury (DILI), sustained virologic response at post-treatment week 12 (SVR12), and recurrence rates in HCV GT 1 infection. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study that included patients diagnosed with HCV GT 1 infection, who had received intervention and treatment with elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR) ± ribavirin (RBV) versus ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir (OBV/PTV/r) + dasabuvir ± RBV (as control group) for 12 or 24 weeks at a regional hospital in southern Taiwan between April 2016 and August 2018. The primary outcome of the study was to compare the incidence rate ratio (IRR) of DILI via Poisson regression, and the secondary outcome was to evaluate the effectiveness of two treatment regimens expressed as a percentage. Results: The study included 149 patients in the control group and 105 patients in the intervention group of which 99.33 and 98.1% patients, respectively, achieved SVR12. In the control group, one patient experienced relapse, whereas in the intervention group, two patients relapsed. Furthermore, in the control group, a total of nine patients developed DILI as determined during follow-up care. Of these patients, three were 55-84 years old. In the intervention group, six patients developed DILI. The IRR of DILI caused by EBR/GZR treatment was 2.84 times higher than that caused by the OBV/PTV/r treatment regimen. Conclusion: There was no significant difference between the studied DAA regimens regarding the incidence of DILI and effectiveness during the treatment. DILI occurrence during therapy did not affect the cure rate of medication. The present study results can provide reference data for drug selection among patients with HCV. Trial registration: The study was approved by DMF-CYCH (CYCH IRB No: 2018067).