Refine
Document Type
- Article (4)
Language
- English (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4)
Institute
- Medizin (4)
Background: SNPs near the interferon lambda (IFNL) 3 gene are predictors for sustained virological response (SVR) in patients with chronic hepatitis C genotype (GT) 1. In addition, a dinucleotide frame shift in ss469415590 was described, which generates IFNL4. In this study, we compared the role of IFNL4 variants with IFNL3-(rs12979860) and IFNL3-(rs8099917) on response to pegylated (PEG)-IFN and Ribavirin (RBV) in patients with chronic hepatitis C GT2/3.
Methods: We recruited 1006 patients with chronic hepatitis C and GT2/3 in a large German registry. A treatment with PEG-IFN and Ribavirin was started by 959 patients. We performed genotyping of IFNL3 (rs12979860, n = 726; rs8099917, n = 687) and of IFNL4 (ss469415590; n = 631).
Results: Both preferable IFNL3 genotypes were associated with RVR (both p<0.0001) rather than with SVR (rs12979860: p = 0.251; rs8099917: p = 0.447). Only RVR was linked to SVR in univariate and multivariate analyzes (both p<0.001). Concordance of genotyping in patients with available serum samples and EDTA blood samples (n = 259) was more than 96% for both IFNL3 SNPs. IFNL3-(rs12979860) correlated with IFNL4: 99.2% of patients with IFNL3-(rs12979860)-CC were IFNL4-(ss469415590)-TT/TT. IFNL3-(rs12979860)-CT was linked with IFNL4-(ss469415590)-TT/ΔG (98.0%) and IFNL3-(rs12979860)-TT was associated with IFNL4-(ss469415590)-ΔG/ΔG (97.6%).
Conclusion: IFNL3 genotyping from serum was highly efficient and can be used as an alternative if EDTA whole blood is not available. In Caucasian GT2/3 patients genotyping for INFL4-(ss469415590) does not lead to additional information for the decision-making process. Importantly, IFNL3 SNPs were not associated with SVR but with RVR. Even in the era of new direct acting antiviral (DAA) therapies, IFNL3 testing may therefore still be considered for naïve GT2/3 patients to decide if dual Peg-IFN/RBV therapy is an option in resource limited regions.
1. Objective: Chronic hepatitis C virus infections (HCV) cause a significant public health burden. Introduction of telaprevir (TVR) and boceprevir (BOC) has increased sustained virologic response rates (SVR) in genotype 1 patients but were accompanied by higher treatment costs and more side effects. Aim of the study was to assess outcomes and costs of treating HCV with TVR or BOC in routine care.
2. Material and Methods: Data was obtained from a non-interventional study. This analysis relates on a subset of 1,786 patients for whom resource utilisation was documented. Sociodemografic and clinical parameters as well as resource utilisation were collected using a web-based data recording system. Costs were calculated using official remuneration schemes.
3. Results: Mean age of patients was 49.2 years, 58.6% were male. In treatment-naive patients SVR-rates of 62.2% and 55.7% for TVR and BOC were observed (prior relapser: 68.5% for TVR and 63.5% for BOC; prior nonresponder: 45.6% for TVR and 39.1% for BOC). Treatment costs are dominated by costs for pharmaceuticals and range between €39,081 and €53,491. We calculated average costs per SVR of €81,347 (TVR) and €70,163 (BOC) in treatment-naive patients (prior relapser: 78,089 €/SVR for TVR and 82,077 €/SVR for BOC; prior non-responder: 116,509 €/SVR for TVR and 110,156 €/SVR for BOC). Quality of life data showed a considerable decrease during treatment.
4. Conclusion: Our study is one of few investigating both, outcomes and costs, of treating HCV in a real-life setting. Data can serve as a reference in the discussion of increasing costs in recently introduced agents
Background and aims: Individualization of treatment with peginterferon alfa and ribavirin in patients with chronic hepatitis C showed benefit in controlled trials and was implemented in treatment guidelines to increase response rates and to reduce side effects and costs. However, it is unknown whether individualization was adopted in routine daily practice and whether it translated into improved outcomes.
Methods: From a large noninterventional cohort study, clinical and virologic response data of 10,262 HCV patients who received peginterferon alfa-2a and ribavirin between 2003-2007 and 2008-2011 were analyzed. To account for treatment individualization, a matched-pair analysis (2,997 matched pairs) was performed. Variation in treatment duration and dosing of ribavirin were analyzed as indicators for individualization.
Results: Sustained virological response (SVR) rates were similar between 2003-2007 and 2008-2011 (62.0% vs. 63.7%). Patients with comorbidities were more abundant in the later period, (44.3% vs. 57.1%). The subsequent matched-pair analysis demonstrated higher SVR rates in the 2008-2011 period (64.3%) than in the 2003-2007 period (61.2%, p=0.008). More patients received abbreviated or extended treatment regimens in the later than the earlier period as an indicator of treatment individualization. To the same end, ribavirin doses were higher in the later period (12.6 versus 11.6 mg/kg/day). Factors independently associated with SVR included HCV genotype, low baseline viral load, younger age, route of infection, absence of concomitant diseases, lower APRI score, normal gamma-GT, higher ribavirin doses, no substitution for drug abuse, treatment duration, and treatment in the 2008-2011 period.
Conclusions: Treatment individualization with peginterferon alfa and ribavirin was implemented in daily routine between 2003-2007 and 2008-2011, SVR rates improved in the same period. These findings may be most relevant in resource-limited settings.
Evidence based clinical guidelines are implemented to treat patients efficiently that include efficacy, tolerability but also health economic considerations. This is of particular relevance to the new direct acting antiviral agents that have revolutionized treatment of chronic hepatitis C. For hepatitis C genotypes 2/3 interferon free treatment is already available with sofosbuvir plus ribavirin. However, treatment with sofosbuvir-based regimens is 10–20 times more expensive compared to pegylated interferon alfa and ribavirin (PegIFN/RBV). It has to be discussed if PegIFN/RBV is still an option for easy to treat patients. We assessed the treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis C genotypes 2/3 with PegIFN/RBV in a real world setting according to the latest German guidelines. Overall, 1006 patients were recruited into a prospective patient registry with 959 having started treatment. The intention-to-treat analysis showed poor SVR (GT2 61%, GT3 47%) while patients with adherence had excellent SVR in the per protocol analysis (GT2 96%, GT3 90%). According to guidelines, 283 patients were candidates for shorter treatment duration, namely a treatment of 16 weeks (baseline HCV-RNA <800.000 IU/mL, no cirrhosis and RVR). However, 65% of these easy to treat patients have been treated longer than recommended that resulted in higher costs but not higher SVR rates. In conclusion, treatment with PegIFN/RBV in a real world setting can be highly effective yet similar effective than PegIFN± sofosbuvir/RBV in well-selected naïve G2/3 patients. Full adherence to guidelines could be further improved, because it would be important in the new era with DAA, especially to safe resources.