Refine
Year of publication
- 2020 (2)
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- Antiviral immune response (1)
- Cirrhosis (1)
- Germany (1)
- HIV (1)
- Hepatitis C virus (1)
- Hepatocellular carcinoma (1)
- Interferons (1)
- Liver transplantation (1)
- Protease inhibitor therapy (1)
- aftercare structures (1)
Institute
- Medizin (2)
Improving long-term patient and graft survival after liver transplantation (LT) remains a major challenge. Compared to the early phase after LT, long-term morbidity and mortality of the recipients not only depends on complications immediately related to the graft function, infections, or rejection, but also on medical factors such as de novo malignancies, metabolic disorders (e.g., new-onset diabetes, osteoporosis), psychiatric conditions (e.g., anxiety, depression), renal failure, and cardiovascular diseases. While a comprehensive post-transplant care at the LT center and the connected regional networks may improve outcome, there is currently no generally accepted standard to the post-transplant management of LT recipients in Germany. We therefore described the structure and standards of post-LT care by conducting a survey at 12 German LT centers including transplant hepatologists and surgeons. Aftercare structures and form of cost reimbursement considerably varied between LT centers across Germany. Further discussions and studies are required to define optimal structure and content of post-LT care systems, aiming at improving the long-term outcomes of LT recipients.
Background: Re-treatment in patients with a chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and a previous failure to direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment remains a challenge. Therefore, we investigated the success rate of treatment and re-treatment regimens used at our center from October 2011 to March 2018.
Methods: A retrospective analysis of DAA-based HCV therapies of 1096 patients was conducted. Factors associated with a virological relapse were identified by univariable and multivariable logistic regression, treatment success of the re-treatment regimens was evaluated by an analysis of sustained virological response (SVR) rates in patients with a documented follow-up 12 weeks after the end of treatment.
Results: Of 1096 patients treated with DAA-based regimens, 91 patients (8%) were lost to follow-up, 892 of the remaining 1005 patients (89%) achieved an SVR12. Most patients (65/113, 58%) who experienced a virological relapse received an interferon-based DAA regimen. SVR rates were comparable in special cohorts like liver transplant recipients (53/61, 87%) and people with a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) coinfection (41/45, 91%). On multivariable analysis, interferon-based DAA therapy was associated with treatment failure (odds ratio 0.111, 95%-confidence interval 0.054–0.218) among others. One hundred seventeen patients with multiple DAA treatment courses were identified, of which 97 patients (83%) experienced a single relapse, but further relapses after two (18/117, 15%) or even three (2/117, 2%) treatment courses were also observed. Eighty-two of 96 (85%) re-treatment attempts with all-oral DAA regimens were successful after an initial treatment failure.
Conclusion: Overall, DAA re-treatments were highly effective in this real-world cohort and only a minority of patients failed more than two treatment courses. Switching to–or addition of–a new drug class seem to be valid options for the re-treatment of patients especially after failure of an interferon-based regimen.