Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- Antiretroviral therapy (1)
- Antiretrovirals (1)
- Cirrhosis (1)
- HIV (1)
- HIV-1 (1)
- Hepatitis C virus (1)
- Liver diseases (1)
- Liver transplantation (1)
- drug–drug interactions (1)
- drug–gene interactions (1)
Institute
- Medizin (2)
Drug interactions are a well-known cause of adverse drug events, and drug interaction databases can help the clinician to recognize and avoid such interactions and their adverse events. However, not every interaction leads to an adverse drug event. This is because the clinical relevance of drug–drug interactions also depends on the genetic profile of the patient. If inhibitors or inducers of drug metabolising enzymes (e.g., CYP and UGT) are added to the drug therapy, phenoconcversion can occur. This leads to a genetic phenotype that mismatches the observable phenotype. Drug–drug–gene and drug–gene–gene interactions influence the toxicity and/or ineffectivness of the drug therapy. To date, there have been limited published studies on the impact of genetic variations on drug–drug interactions. This review discusses the current evidence of drug–drug–gene interactions, as well as drug–gene–gene interactions. Phenoconversion is explained, the and methods to calculate the phenotypes are described. Clinical recommendations are given regarding the integratation of the PGx results in the assessment of the relevance of drug interactions in the future.
Objectives: The aim of this multicenter retrospective study was to investigate safety and efficacy of direct acting antiviral (DAA) treatment in the rare subgroup of patients with HCV/HIV-coinfection and advanced liver cirrhosis on the liver transplant waiting list or after liver transplantation, respectively.
Methods: When contacting 54 German liver centers (including all 23 German liver transplant centers), 12 HCV/HIV-coinfected patients on antiretroviral combination therapy were reported having received additional DAA therapy while being on the waiting list for liver transplantation (patient characteristics: Child-Pugh A (n = 6), B (n = 5), C (n = 1); MELD range 7–21; HCC (n = 2); HCV genotype 1a (n = 8), 1b (n = 2), 4 (n = 2)). Furthermore, 2 HCV/HIV-coinfected patients were denoted having received DAA therapy after liver transplantation (characteristics: HCV genotype 1a (n = 1), 4 (n = 1)).
Results: Applied DAA regimens were SOF/DAC (n = 7), SOF/LDV/RBV (n = 3), SOF/RBV (n = 3), PTV/r/OBV/DSV (n = 1), or PTV/r/OBV/DSV/RBV (n = 1), respectively. All patients achieved SVR 12, in the end. In one patient, HCV relapse occurred after 24 weeks of SOF/DAC therapy; subsequent treatment with 12 weeks PTV/r/OBV/DSV achieved SVR 12. One patient underwent liver transplantation while on DAA treatment. Analysis of liver function revealed either stable parameters or even significant improvement during DAA therapy and in follow-up. MELD scores were found to improve in 9/13 therapies in patients on the waiting list for liver transplantation; in only 2 patients a moderate increase of MELD scores persisted at the end of follow-up.
Conclusion: DAA treatment was safe and highly effective in this nation-wide cohort of patients with HCV/HIV-coinfection awaiting liver transplantation or being transplanted.