Real-life effectiveness of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir in hepatitis C patients previously treated with sofosbuvir/velpatasvir or glecaprevir/pibrentasvir.

BACKGROUND: Sofosbuvir, velpatasvir and voxilaprevir (SOF/VEL/VOX) is the recommended rescue therapy for patients with chronic hepatitis C infection who fail direct-acting antivirals (DAAs). Data are limited on the effectiveness of this treatment after the current first-line therapies. Our aim was to analyse the effectiveness and safety of SOF/VEL/VOX among patients failing sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL) or glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB). METHODS: Retrospective multicentre study (26 Spanish hospitals), including chronic hepatitis C patients unsuccessfully treated with SOF/VEL or GLE/PIB, and retreated with SOF/VEL/VOX ± ribavirin for 12 weeks between December 2017 and December 2022. RESULTS: In total, 142 patients included: 100 (70.4%) had failed SOF/VEL and 42 (29.6%) GLE/PIB. Patients were mainly men (84.5%), White (93.9%), with hepatitis C virus genotype (GT) 3 (49.6%) and 47.2% had liver cirrhosis. Sustained virological response (SVR) was evaluated in 132 patients who completed SOF/VEL/VOX and were followed 12 weeks after end of treatment; 117 (88.6%) achieved SVR. There were no significant differences in SVR rates according to initial DAA treatment (SOF/VEL 87.9% vs. GLE/PIB 90.2%, p = 0.8), cirrhosis (no cirrhosis 90% vs. cirrhosis 87.1%, p = 0.6) or GT3 infection (non-GT3 91.9% vs. GT3 85.5%, p = 0.3). However, when considering the concurrent presence of SOF/VEL treatment, cirrhosis and GT3 infection, SVR rates dropped to 82.8%. Ribavirin was added in 8 (6%) patients, all achieved SVR. CONCLUSION: SOF/VEL/VOX is an effective rescue therapy for failures to SOF/VEL or GLE/PIB, with an SVR of 88.6%. Factors previously linked to lower SVR rates, such as GT3 infection, cirrhosis and first-line therapy with SOF/VEL were not associated with lower SVRs.

Eight weeks of Paritaprevir/r/Ombitasvir + Dasabuvir in HCV genotype 1b with mild-moderate fibrosis: Results from a real-world cohort.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The interferon-free regimen paritaprevir/ritonavir, ombitasvir + dasabuvir (PTV/r/OBV/DSV) has shown high efficacy in patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1b infection when administered for 8 or 12 weeks, but data regarding the 8-week treatment are scarce. The aim of our study was to assess the efficacy and safety of the 8-week administration of PTV/r/OBV/DSV in a real-world cohort. METHODS: We performed a multicentre observational study from Spanish Hepa-C database including patients receiving 8 weeks of PTV/r/OBV/DSV (October 2016-November 2017). Those with advanced fibrosis, with non-genotype 1b or who were treatment-experienced were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 211 patients were registered from 23 Spanish centres; eleven were excluded. At baseline, 42.5% (n = 85) were male, median (range) age was 57 (23-86), ALT was 45 (11-494) IU/mL, viral load was 6.1 (3.3-8.2) log10 IU/mL, and 74.5% had mild liver fibrosis (F0-F1) and 25.5% moderate fibrosis (F2). At the end of treatment (EOT), HCV viral load was undetectable in 100% (200/200). Seven patients relapsed after treatment discontinuation. Sustained virological response (SVR12) rates by intention-to-treat analysis were 96% (192/200). Regarding treatment safety, 2 patients developed ALT elevation >5x ULN, but there were no treatment discontinuations. One patient died 7 weeks after EOT. CONCLUSION: Treatment with PTV/r/OBV/DSV in genotype 1b-infected treatment-naive patients with mild-moderate fibrosis shows excellent efficacy and safety in real life, similarly to clinical trials. Clinicaltrials.gov, number: NCT03122132.

Effectiveness and Safety of Entecavir or Tenofovir in a Spanish Cohort of Chronic Hepatitis B Patients: Validation of the Page-B Score to Predict Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Long-term antiviral therapy has resulted in viral suppression and biochemical response in chronic hepatitis B, although the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma has not been abolished. The Page-B score could be useful to estimate the probability of HCC. AIMS: To analyze the effectiveness and safety of entecavir or tenofovir for more than 4 years and the usefulness of Page-B score in the real-world setting. METHODS: Analysis of Caucasian chronic hepatitis B subjects treated with entecavir or tenofovir from the prospective, multicenter database CIBERHEP. RESULTS: A total of 611 patients were enrolled: 187 received entecavir and 424 tenofovir. Most were men, mean age 50 years, 32% cirrhotic and 16.5% HBeAg-positive. Mean follow-up was 55 (entecavir) and 49 (tenofovir) months. >90% achieved HBV DNA <69 IU/mL and biochemical normalization by months 12 and 36, respectively. Cumulative HBeAg loss and anti-HBe seroconversion were achieved by 33.7 and 23.8%. Four patients lost HBsAg; three HBeAg-positive. Renal function remained stable on long-term follow-up. Fourteen (2.29%) developed HCC during follow-up all of them with baseline Page-B ≥10. Nine were diagnosed within the first 5 years of therapy. This contrasts with the 27 estimated by Page-B, a difference that highlights the importance of regular HCC surveillance even in patients with virological suppression. CONCLUSIONS: Entecavir and tenofovir achieved high biochemical and virological response. Renal function remained stable with both drugs. A Page-B cut-off ≥10 selected all patients at risk of HCC development.

Usefulness of applying lidocaine in esophagogastroduodenoscopy performed under sedation with propofol.

AIM: To determine whether topical lidocaine benefits esophagogastroduoduenoscopy (EGD) by decreasing propofol dose necessary for sedation or procedure-related complications. METHODS: The study was designed as a prospective, single centre, double blind, randomised clinical trial and was conducted in 2012 between January and May (NCT01489891). Consecutive patients undergoing EGD were randomly assigned to receive supplemental topical lidocaine (L; 50 mg in an excipient solution which was applied as a spray to the oropharynx) or placebo (P; taste excipients solution without active substance, similarly delivered) prior to the standard propofol sedation procedure. The propofol was administered as a bolus intravenous (iv) dose, with patients in the L and P groups receiving initial doses based on the patient's American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) classification (ASA I-II: 0.50-0.60 mg/kg; ASA III-IV: 0.25-0.35 mg/kg), followed by 10-20 mg iv dose every 30-60 s at the anaesthetist's discretion. Vital signs, anthropometric measurements, amount of propofol administered, sedation level reached, examination time, and the subjective assessments of the endoscopist's and anaesthetist's satisfaction (based upon a four point Likert scale) were recorded. All statistical tests were performed by the Stata statistical software suite (Release 11, 2009; StataCorp, LP, College Station, TX, United States). RESULTS: No significant differences were found between the groups treated with lidocaine or placebo in terms of total propofol dose (310.7 ± 139.2 mg/kg per minute vs 280.1 ± 87.7 mg/kg per minute, P = 0.15) or intraprocedural propofol dose (135.3 ± 151.7 mg/kg per minute vs 122.7 ± 96.5 mg/kg per minute, P = 0.58). Only when the L and P groups were analysed with the particular subgroups of female, < 65-year-old, and lower anaesthetic risk level (ASA I-II) was a statistically significant difference found (L: 336.5 ± 141.2 mg/kg per minute vs P: 284.6 ± 91.2 mg/kg per minute, P = 0.03) for greater total propofol requirements). The total incidence of complications was also similar between the two groups, with the L group showing a complication rate of 32.2% (95%CI: 21.6-45.0) and the P group showing a complication rate of 26.7% (95%CI: 17.0-39.0). In addition, the use of lidocaine had no effect on the anaesthetist's or endoscopist's satisfaction with the procedure. Thus, the endoscopist's satisfaction Likert assessments were equally distributed among the L and P groups: unsatisfactory, [L: 6.8% (95%CI: 2.2-15.5) vs P: 0% (95%CI: 0-4.8); neutral, L: 10.1% (95%CI: 4.2-19.9) vs P: 15% (95%CI: 7.6-25.7)]; satisfactory, [L: 25.4% (95%CI: 10-29.6) vs P: 18.3% (95%CI: 15.5-37.6); and very satisfactory, L: 57.6% (95%CI: 54-77.7) vs P: 66.6% (95%CI: 44.8-69.7)]. Likewise, the anaesthetist's satisfaction Likert assessments regarding the ease of maintaining a patient at an optimum sedation level without agitation or modification of the projected sedation protocol were not affected by the application of lidocaine, as evidenced by the lack of significant differences between the scores for the placebo group: unsatisfactory, L: 5.8% (95%CI: 1.3-13.2) vs P: 0% (95%CI: 0-4.8); neutral, L: 16.9% (95%CI: 8.9-28.4) vs P: 16.7% (95%CI: 8.8-27.7); satisfactory, L: 15.2% (95%CI: 7.7-26.1) vs P: 20.3% (95%CI: 11.3-31.6); and very satisfactory, L: 62.7% (95%CI: 49.9-74.3) vs P: 63.3% (95%CI: 50.6-74.7). CONCLUSION: Topical pharyngeal anaesthesia is safe in EGD but does not reduce the necessary dose of propofol or improve the anaesthetist's or endoscopist's satisfaction with the procedure.