RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Recent years have brought a significant advance in chronic hepatitis C (CHC) treatment that includes development of direct acting antivirals (DAA). Two of them, boceprevir (BOC) and telaprevir (TVR), were first approved for treatment of patients infected with CHC genotype 1 in combination with pegylated interferon (P) and ribavirin (R). Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and direct costs of BOC/PR and TVR/PR in a real life population. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study included adult patients qualified for the CHC Therapeutic Programme treated with TVR/PR or BOC/PR. Treatment was continued for 24 or 48 weeks. Sustained virological response, treatment discontinuation due to adverse events and lack of virological response rates were compared. RESULTS: A total of 243 adult patients with CHC were included. TVR/PR and BOC/PR were administered in respectively 122 and 121 patients. Thirty-two patients (13%) were treatment-naïve, whereas liver cirrhosis/advanced fibrosis was observed in 138 patients (56.7%). Overall, 43.6% of patients achieved a sustained virologic response (SVR). In the BOC/PR group the SVR rate was significantly lower than in the TVR/PR group (33.1% vs. 54.1%; p = 0.00094). Lack of response to therapy was observed in 41.3% and 12.3% of patients receiving BOC and TVR, respectively (p < 0.00001). The direct cost of achieving SVR in one patient was 285 450 PLN with BOC and 185 757 PLN with TVR. CONCLUSIONS: The very low treatment efficacy may be the result of inclusion criteria that allowed treatment of patients with advanced liver fibrosis/liver cirrhosis or previous treatment failure. Telaprevir seems to be significantly more potent against hepatitis C virus, with similar safety and tolerance.
RESUMEN
AIM: The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of an initial dose of ribavirin administered before a 48-week course of treatment with peg-IFN + ribavirin in treatment-naïve patients and in patients after previous failure of CHC treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 103 patients with chronic hepatitis C infected with genotype 1 HCV were qualified to the study. Study patients were randomised to receive one of two treatments: A- RBV for 4 weeks followed by combined therapy with peg-IFN alpha-2a +RBV for 48 weeks (n = 73), or B- combined therapy with peg-IFN alpha-2a +RBV for 48 weeks (n = 30). RESULTS: SVR 24 was observed in 44% patients in group A and in group 40% patients in group B (40%), p > 0.05. Comparing subgroups of the naive patients, it was found that the SVR24 value was higher in group A than group B (57% vs. 47%, p > 0.05). In the re-therapy subgroups, higher treatment response rates in patients not responding earlier was found in group A than group B (39% vs. 16%, p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: No significant advantage was found in the use of a priming method over a standard regimen. However, it could be recommended in patients with a total lack of response to peg-IFN and ribavirin when no other therapeutic options are available.