ABSTRACT
Hepatitis delta virus (HDV) is the most severe form of viral hepatitis. Pegylated interferon alfa (PEG-IFNα) is effective in only 25%-30% of patients and is associated with frequent side effects. The aim of this study was to analyze the clinical long-term outcome of hepatitis delta in relation to different antiviral treatment strategies. We studied 136 anti-HDV-positive patients who were followed for at least 6 months in a retrospective single-center cohort (mean time of follow-up, 5.2 years; range, 0.6-18.8). Liver cirrhosis was already present in 62 patients at first presentation. Twenty-nine percent of patients did not receive any antiviral treatment, 38% were treated with interferon alfa (IFNα)-based therapies, and 33% received nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) only. Clinical endpoints defined as hepatic decompensation (ascites, encephalopathy, and variceal bleeding), hepatocellular carcinoma, liver transplantation, and liver-related death developed in 55 patients (40%). Patients who received IFNα-based therapies developed clinical endpoints less frequently than those treated with NA (P = 0.02; HR, 4.0) or untreated patients (P = 0.05; HR, 2.2; 17%, 64%, and 44%), respectively, which was significant in both chi-square and Kaplan-Meier analysis. In addition, considering various clinical and virological parameters, IFNα therapy was independently associated with a more benign clinical long-term outcome in multivariate logistic regression analysis (P = 0.04; odds ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.9). Loss of HDV RNA during follow-up was more frequent in IFNα-treated patients and strongly linked with a lower likelihood to experience liver-related complications. CONCLUSION: IFNα-based antiviral therapy of hepatitis delta was independently associated with a lower likelihood for clinical disease progression. Durable undetectability of HDV RNA is a valid surrogate endpoint in the treatment of hepatitis delta. (Hepatology 2017;65:414-425).
Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Hepatitis D/drug therapy , Hepatitis D/mortality , Interferon-alpha/therapeutic use , Liver Cirrhosis/pathology , Liver Neoplasms/pathology , Adolescent , Adult , Analysis of Variance , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , Cause of Death , Chi-Square Distribution , Cohort Studies , Disease Progression , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Drug Administration Schedule , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Germany , Hepatitis D/diagnosis , Hepatitis Delta Virus/drug effects , Hepatitis Delta Virus/isolation & purification , Humans , Interferon-alpha/adverse effects , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Liver/drug effects , Liver/pathology , Liver Cirrhosis/etiology , Liver Cirrhosis/mortality , Liver Neoplasms/etiology , Liver Neoplasms/mortality , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Multivariate Analysis , Reference Values , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Severity of Illness Index , Survival Analysis , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: HCV protease inhibitors (PIs) boceprevir and telaprevir in combination with PEG-Interferon alfa and Ribavirin (P/R) is the new standard of care in the treatment of chronic HCV genotype 1 (GT1) infection. However, not every HCV GT1 infected patient is eligible for P/R/PI therapy. Furthermore phase III studies did not necessarily reflect real world as patients with advanced liver disease or comorbidities were underrepresented. The aim of our study was to analyze the eligibility and safety of P/R/PI treatment in a real world setting of a tertiary referral center. METHODS: All consecutive HCV GT1 infected patients who were referred to our hepatitis treatment unit between June and November 2011 were included. Patients were evaluated for P/R/PI according to their individual risk/benefit ratio based on 4 factors: Treatment-associated safety concerns, chance for SVR, treatment urgency and nonmedical patient related reasons. On treatment data were analyzed until week 12. RESULTS: 208 patients were included (F3/F4 64%, mean platelet count 169/nl, 40% treatment-naïve). Treatment was not initiated in 103 patients most frequently due to safety concerns. 19 patients were treated in phase II/III trials or by local centers and a triple therapy concept was initiated at our unit in 86 patients. Hospitalization was required in 16 patients; one patient died due to a gastrointestinal infection possibly related to treatment. A platelet count of <110/nl was associated with hospitalization as well as treatment failure. Overall, 128 patients were either not eligible for therapy or experienced a treatment failure at week 12. CONCLUSIONS: P/R/PI therapies are complex, time-consuming and sometimes dangerous in a real world setting, especially in patients with advanced liver disease. A careful patient selection plays a crucial role to improve safety of PI based therapies. A significant number of patients are not eligible for P/R/PI, emphasizing the need for alternative therapeutic options.
