Patient preference and willingness to pay for transient elastography versus liver biopsy: A perspective from British Columbia.

BACKGROUND: The cost of liver biopsy (LB) is publicly funded in British Columbia, while the cost of transient elastography (FibroScan [FS], Echosens, France) is not. Consequently, there is regional variation regarding FS access and monitoring of liver disease progression. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient preference for FS versus LB and to assess the willingness to self-pay for FS. METHODS: Questionnaires were distributed in clinic and via mail to LB-experienced and LB-naive patients who underwent FS at Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 76%. Of the 422 respondents, 205 were LB-experienced. The mean age was 53.5 years, 50.2% were male, 54.7% were Caucasian, 38.2% had hepatitis C and 26.3% had an annual household income >$75,000. Overall, 95.4% of patients preferred FS to LB. FS was associated with greater comfort than LB, with the majority reporting no discomfort during FS (84.1% versus 7.8% for LB), no discomfort after (96.2% versus 14.6% LB) and no feelings of anxiety after FS explanation (78.2% versus 12.7% LB). FS was also associated with greater speed, with the majority reporting short test duration (97.2% versus 48.3% LB) and short wait for the test result (95.5% versus 30.2% LB). Most (75.3%) respondents were willing to self-pay for FS, with 26.3% willing to pay $25 to $49. Patients with unknown liver disease preferred LB (OR [FS preference] 0.20 [95% CI 0.07 to 0.53]). CONCLUSIONS: FS was the preferred method of assessing liver fibrosis among patients, with the majority willing to self-pay. To ensure consistency in access, provincial funding for FS is needed. However, LB remains the procedure of choice for individuals with an unknown diagnosis.

The effect of doxorubicin loading on response and toxicity with drug-eluting embolization in resectable hepatoma: a dose escalation study.

AIM: The dose-response relationship between doxorubicin and superabsorbent drug-eluting microspheres has not been established. In this study, we investigated the relationships between dose and delivery parameters as they pertain to toxicity and response in surgically resectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients with resectable HCC were randomly assigned and divided into four groups, each receiving either bland, 25 mg, 50 mg or 75 mg of doxorubicin loaded Super Absorbent Polymer microspheres, with 24 patients undergoing surgical resection. Response Evaluation and Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.0 and European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL)-based volumetric response was performed at one month and surgical resection of the reference tumor was performed at two months. Adverse events were collected at regular intervals. RESULTS: Fifty-six percent of patients demonstrated complete response according to EASL criteria as opposed to 0% according to RECIST (v1.0) criteria. Residual tumor was identified in all groups (0 mg: 35%±28.5%; 25 mg: 42%±30.4%; 50 mg: 3.6%±3.3%; and 75 mg: 49.29%±32.6%. A total of 112 adverse events of grades 1-3 occurred (average 5.1 per patient), with no grade 4 or 5. No difference was noted between bland embolic and drug-loaded groups. Subset analysis did demonstrate a significantly increased degree of necrosis in the 50 mg-loaded group (p=0.018). Strong correlation existed between arterial phase Computer Tomography EASL-based response and histopathology (r=0.81; p<0.0001). All groups had residual tumor. CONCLUSION: Histology correlates strongly with one-month post-procedural imaging and response optimized at 50 mg of loading per vial. Adverse events were a reflection of embolization, with no relationship between loading dose or administered dose of doxorubicin.

Review of boceprevir and telaprevir for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize and evaluate the published literature pertaining to boceprevir and telaprevir, and to provide clinicians with suggestions for use in patients with chronic hepatitis C infection. METHODS: A standardized search strategy was performed using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar and International Pharmaceuticals Abstracts databases using the search terms "boceprevir", "telaprevir", "boceprevir and hepatitis C", and "telaprevir and hepatitis C". A manual search of references was performed to identify articles missed by the electronic search. Studies were included in the review if they assessed either boceprevir or telaprevir in comparison with standard of care in chronic hepatitis C patients. RESULTS: The studies identified assessed boceprevir and telaprevir in genotype-1 hepatitis C patients. In both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients, sustained virological response rates were achieved more often with boceprevir or telaprevir in combination with pegylated interferon and ribavirin compared with pegylated interferon and ribavirin alone. Both medications were well tolerated, with anemia presenting as the most treatment-limiting adverse effect. CONCLUSIONS: Boceprevir and telaprevir will revolutionize the management of hepatitis C genotype 1 patients and will most likely decrease the burden of end-stage disease worldwide. However, current clinical limitations include establishing appropriate and cost-effective treatment durations, and use in special populations such as transplant patients and patients coinfected with HIV. Future research will need to clarify these clinical obstacles to clearly define the role of these agents in hepatitis C management.

A review of drug interactions with boceprevir and telaprevir: implications for HIV and transplant patients.

PURPOSE: Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a major problem affecting up to 170 million people worldwide. Two protease inhibitors have recently been approved that will revolutionize treatment. Our objective was to summarize and evaluate the literature pertaining to the pharmacokinetics of boceprevir and telaprevir, in order to provide clinicians with insight into the management of actual and potential drug interactions. SUMMARY: A standardized search using MEDLINE (1948-November 2011), EMBASE (1980-November 2011), IPA (1970-November 2011), Google, and Google Scholar that combined the search terms boceprevir, telaprevir, pharmacokinetics, drug interaction, and drug metabolism was performed. Manual reference searches of chosen articles were completed. Monographs and articles, conference proceedings, and abstracts were evaluated. Boceprevir and telaprevir are both substrates and inhibitors of cytochrome P450 3A4 and telaprevir is a substrate of p-glycoprotein. Levels of boceprevir are decreased in patients taking efavirenz but effects with other antiretrovirals are minimal or unknown. Coadministration with efavirenz may compromise telaprevir levels and should be avoided. Telaprevir may increase levels of cyclosporine, tacrolimus, atorvastatin, and amlodipine, which may expose patients to increased adverse effects. Conclusions. Significant drug-drug interactions occur with both boceprevir and telaprevir. Until studies are reported and experience is gained with these agents, clinicians will need to be careful when administering in high-risk populations and those receiving chronic therapy with interacting agents. Studies are urgently needed in HIV patients taking antiretrovirals and patients taking chronic immunosuppression as these populations are at increased risk of experiencing clinically significant interactions.

Iron overload disorders: treatment options for patients refractory to or intolerant of phlebotomy.

Iron overload disorders involve excess accumulation of iron in body tissues as a result of hereditary and nonhereditary diseases. If left untreated, tissue iron deposition can result in organ damage. Treatment options such as phlebotomy, chelating agents, and erythrocytapheresis can prevent complications and target organ damage. Although phlebotomy is the gold standard for iron overload treatment in the setting of hereditary hemochromatosis, this procedure is usually not feasible for other iron overload conditions, especially those associated with anemia. With the introduction of newer, oral chelating agents, more options are available for patients refractory to or intolerant of parenteral chelating agents.

Use of hematopoietic growth factors as adjuvant therapy for anemia and neutropenia in the treatment of hepatitis C.

OBJECTIVE: To review the hematologic adverse effects of hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapy and adjuvant treatment with epoetin alfa and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (ie, filgrastim). DATA SOURCES: Medical literature indexed in MEDLINE (1966-January 2007) and EMBASE (1980-January 2007) was searched, and published conference abstracts were reviewed. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Peer-reviewed articles and relevant conference abstracts regarding the use of epoetin alfa and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor were reviewed. DATA SYNTHESIS: Ribavirin induces a dose-dependent hemolytic anemia. Studies using epoetin alfa 40 000 units subcutaneously once weekly have demonstrated efficacy in maintaining hemoglobin, ribavirin dose, and quality of life scores, but clear benefit shown with sustained virologic response (SVR) is lacking. The hemoglobin threshold for initiation of epoetin alfa used in studies may not adequately reflect values used in clinical practice. Treatment-related neutropenia is caused primarily by interferon or peginterferon. Few studies have investigated the impact of granulocyte or granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor derivatives on neutropenia. Results of dose maintenance evaluation vary, and studies reporting data on SVR showed no effect from growth factor therapy. The frequency of bacterial infections was not reported. CONCLUSIONS: The role and benefit of hematopoietic growth factors in HCV therapy have not been conclusively determined to date. However, the possibility of a benefit to individual patients seen on an outpatient basis remains, and an individualized treatment approach is recommended.

Acute sensorineural hearing loss associated with peginterferon and ribavirin combination therapy during hepatitis C treatment: outcome after resumption of therapy.

Peginterferon and ribavirin combination therapy for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) is well known to be associated with significant adverse effects. Sensorineural hearing loss, that in most cases is unilateral, has been reported as a consequence of therapy with both non-pegylated and pegylated interferon (pegIFN) but is not a well-known adverse effect. We report a 45-year-old Caucasian woman who developed acute sensorineural hearing loss 2 mo after starting therapy with pegIFN-alpha 2b and ribavirin for the treatment of chronic HCV, genotype 1a. She did not report the hearing loss to the hepatitis clinic until 1 mo, later whereupon therapy was promptly discontinued. Although her serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) normalized and her HCV-RNA became undetectable after 12 wk of pegIFN and ribavirin therapy, after discontinuation, her HCV-RNA became detectable with significant elevations of serum ALT. Four months after initial discontinuation, the patient re-commenced pegIFN and ribavirin combination therapy. After 44 of 48 wk of therapy, the patient's liver biochemistry has normalized and the HCV-RNA is undetectable. She has not developed worsening of her hearing loss and hearing on the left-side is unaffected. Both patients and physicians should be aware that sensorineural hearing loss may occur with pegIFN therapy. Our experience suggests that re-institution of therapy is not always associated with further hearing impairment.