-
JAMA Aug 2014Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infects more than 185 million individuals worldwide. Twenty percent of patients chronically infected with HCV progress to cirrhosis. New, simpler... (Review)
Review
IMPORTANCE
Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infects more than 185 million individuals worldwide. Twenty percent of patients chronically infected with HCV progress to cirrhosis. New, simpler therapeutics using direct-acting antivirals that target various stages of the HCV life cycle are in development to eradicate HCV without concomitant interferon.
OBJECTIVES
To summarize published evidence on safety, efficacy (measured by a sustained virologic response [SVR], which is the treatment goal of undetectable plasma HCV RNA 12 or 24 weeks after therapy completion), and tolerability of current US Food and Drug Administration-approved interferon-based regimens and oral interferon-free regimens used for treating HCV infection and coinfection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and HCV; to provide treatment recommendations for specialists and generalists based on published evidence.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
A literature search of Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, Agricola, Cochrane Library, Cinahl Plus, ClinicalTrials.gov, Conference Papers Index, Gideon, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, and Oaister was conducted from January 1, 2009, to May 30, 2014. Publications describing phase 2, 3, and 4 studies evaluating the treatment of HCV were included. Forty-one studies involving 19,063 adult patients were included. Strength of clinical data and subsequent HCV treatment recommendations were graded according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.
FINDINGS
Patients infected with HCV genotype 1 represent 60% to 75% of HCV infections in the United States. Hepatitis C virus genotype 1 is more difficult to cure than genotype 2 or genotype 3. Patients with HCV genotype 1 should receive treatment with sofosbuvir + pegylated interferon + ribavirin because of the shorter duration of therapy and high rates of SVR (89%-90%). Simeprevir + pegylated interferon + ribavirin is an alternative for patients with HCV genotype 1 (SVR, 79%-86%). Patients with HCV genotypes 2 and 3, representing 20% to 29% of US HCV infections, should receive therapy with sofosbuvir + ribavirin alone (SVR for genotype 2, 12 weeks' duration: 82%-93%; SVR for genotype 3, 24 weeks' duration, 80%-95%). Patients with HIV-HCV coinfection and patients with compensated cirrhosis (ie, cirrhosis but preserved synthetic liver function) should receive the same treatment as HCV-monoinfected patients.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
New, short-duration, simpler therapies result in high SVR rates for HCV-infected patients. In conjunction with increased screening for HCV as suggested by recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines, availability of new therapies may lead to the treatment of many more people with chronic HCV infection.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Coinfection; Drug Therapy, Combination; Genotype; HIV Infections; Hepacivirus; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans; Life Cycle Stages; Liver Cirrhosis; Prevalence; United States
PubMed: 25117132
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.7085 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2017Millions of people worldwide suffer from hepatitis C, which can lead to severe liver disease, liver cancer, and death. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs), e.g. sofosbuvir,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Millions of people worldwide suffer from hepatitis C, which can lead to severe liver disease, liver cancer, and death. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs), e.g. sofosbuvir, are relatively new and expensive interventions for chronic hepatitis C, and preliminary results suggest that DAAs may eradicate hepatitis C virus (HCV) from the blood (sustained virological response). Sustained virological response (SVR) is used by investigators and regulatory agencies as a surrogate outcome for morbidity and mortality, based solely on observational evidence. However, there have been no randomised trials that have validated that usage.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of DAAs in people with chronic HCV.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for all published and unpublished trials in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, and BIOSIS; the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China Network Knowledge Information (CNKI), the Chinese Science Journal Database (VIP), Google Scholar, The Turning Research into Practice (TRIP) Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency (EMA) (www.ema.europa.eu/ema/), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (www.fda.gov), and pharmaceutical company sources for ongoing or unpublished trials. Searches were last run in October 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials comparing DAAs versus no intervention or placebo, alone or with co-interventions, in adults with chronic HCV. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, and language.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were hepatitis C-related morbidity, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma, non-serious adverse events (each reported separately), and SVR. We systematically assessed risks of bias, performed Trial Sequential Analysis, and followed an eight-step procedure to assess thresholds for statistical and clinical significance. We evaluated the overall quality of the evidence, using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a total of 138 trials randomising a total of 25,232 participants. The trials were generally short-term trials and designed primarily to assess the effect of treatment on SVR. The trials evaluated 51 different DAAs. Of these, 128 trials employed matching placebo in the control group. All included trials were at high risk of bias. Eighty-four trials involved DAAs on the market or under development (13,466 participants). Fifty-seven trials administered DAAs that were discontinued or withdrawn from the market. Study populations were treatment-naive in 95 trials, had been exposed to treatment in 17 trials, and comprised both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced individuals in 24 trials. The HCV genotypes were genotype 1 (119 trials), genotype 2 (eight trials), genotype 3 (six trials), genotype 4 (nine trials), and genotype 6 (one trial). We identified two ongoing trials.We could not reliably determine the effect of DAAs on the market or under development on our primary outcome of hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality. There were no data on hepatitis C-related morbidity and only limited data on mortality from 11 trials (DAA 15/2377 (0.63%) versus control 1/617 (0.16%); OR 3.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 26.18, very low-quality evidence). We did not perform Trial Sequential Analysis on this outcome.There is very low quality evidence that DAAs on the market or under development do not influence serious adverse events (DAA 5.2% versus control 5.6%; OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15 , 15,817 participants, 43 trials). The Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was sufficient information to rule out that DAAs reduce the relative risk of a serious adverse event by 20% when compared with placebo. The only DAA that showed a lower risk of serious adverse events when meta-analysed separately was simeprevir (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86). However, Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was not enough information to confirm or reject a relative risk reduction of 20%, and when one trial with an extreme result was excluded, the meta-analysis result showed no evidence of a difference.DAAs on the market or under development may reduce the risk of no SVR from 54.1% in untreated people to 23.8% in people treated with DAA (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.52, 6886 participants, 32 trials, low quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Only 1/84 trials on the market or under development assessed the effects of DAAs on health-related quality of life (SF-36 mental score and SF-36 physical score).There was insufficient evidence from trials on withdrawn or discontinued DAAs to determine their effect on hepatitis C-related morbidity and all-cause mortality (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.79; 5 trials, very low-quality evidence). However, these DAAs seemed to increase the risk of serious adverse events (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.73; 29 trials, very low-quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.None of the 138 trials provided useful data to assess the effects of DAAs on the remaining secondary outcomes (ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, and hepatocellular carcinoma).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence for our main outcomes of interest come from short-term trials, and we are unable to determine the effect of long-term treatment with DAAs. The rates of hepatitis C morbidity and mortality observed in the trials are relatively low and we are uncertain as to how DAAs affect this outcome. Overall, there is very low quality evidence that DAAs on the market or under development do not influence serious adverse events. There is insufficient evidence to judge if DAAs have beneficial or harmful effects on other clinical outcomes for chronic HCV. Simeprevir may have beneficial effects on risk of serious adverse event. In all remaining analyses, we could neither confirm nor reject that DAAs had any clinical effects. DAAs may reduce the number of people with detectable virus in their blood, but we do not have sufficient evidence from randomised trials that enables us to understand how SVR affects long-term clinical outcomes. SVR is still an outcome that needs proper validation in randomised clinical trials.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Cause of Death; Hepacivirus; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans; Nucleic Acid Synthesis Inhibitors; Placebos; Protease Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Safety-Based Drug Withdrawals; Simeprevir
PubMed: 28922704
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012143.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Millions of people worldwide suffer from hepatitis C, which can lead to severe liver disease, liver cancer, and death. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are relatively new... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Millions of people worldwide suffer from hepatitis C, which can lead to severe liver disease, liver cancer, and death. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are relatively new and expensive interventions for chronic hepatitis C, and preliminary results suggest that DAAs may eradicate hepatitis C virus (HCV) from the blood (sustained virological response). However, it is still questionable if eradication of hepatitis C virus in the blood eliminates hepatitis C in the body, and improves survival and leads to fewer complications.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of DAAs in people with chronic HCV.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for all published and unpublished trials in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, and BIOSIS; the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China Network Knowledge Information (CNKI), the Chinese Science Journal Database (VIP), Google Scholar, The Turning Research into Practice (TRIP) Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency (EMA) (www.ema.europa.eu/ema/), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (www.fda.gov), and pharmaceutical company sources for ongoing or unpublished trials. Searches were last run in October 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials comparing DAAs versus no intervention or placebo, alone or with co-interventions, in adults with chronic HCV. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, and language.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were hepatitis C-related morbidity, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma, non-serious adverse events (each reported separately), and sustained virological response. We systematically assessed risks of bias, performed Trial Sequential Analysis, and followed an eight-step procedure to assess thresholds for statistical and clinical significance. The overall quality of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a total of 138 trials randomising a total of 25,232 participants. The 138 trials assessed the effects of 51 different DAAs. Of these, 128 trials employed matching placebo in the control group. All included trials were at high risk of bias. Eighty-four trials involved DAAs on the market or under development (13,466 participants). Fifty-seven trials administered withdrawn or discontinued DAAs. Trial participants were treatment-naive (95 trials), treatment-experienced (17 trials), or both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced (24 trials). The HCV genotypes were genotype 1 (119 trials), genotype 2 (eight trials), genotype 3 (six trials), genotype 4 (nine trials), and genotype 6 (one trial). We identified two ongoing trials.Meta-analysis of the effects of all DAAs on the market or under development showed no evidence of a difference when assessing hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality (OR 3.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 26.18, P = 0.19, I² = 0%, 2,996 participants, 11 trials, very low-quality evidence). As there were no data on hepatitis C-related morbidity and very few data on mortality (DAA 15/2377 (0.63%) versus control 1/617 (0.16%)), it was not possible to perform Trial Sequential Analysis on hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality.Meta-analysis of all DAAs on the market or under development showed no evidence of a difference when assessing serious adverse events (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15, P = 0.52, I² = 0%, 15,817 participants, 43 trials, very low-quality evidence). The Trial Sequential Analysis showed that the cumulative Z-score crossed the trial sequential boundary for futility, showing that there was sufficient information to rule out that DAAs compared with placebo reduced the relative risk of a serious adverse event by 20%. The only DAA that showed a significant difference on risk of serious adverse events when meta-analysed separately was simeprevir (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86). However, Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was not enough information to confirm or reject a relative risk reduction of 20%, and when one trial with an extreme result was excluded, then the meta-analysis result showed no evidence of a difference.DAAs on the market or under development seemed to reduce the risk of no sustained virological response (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.52, P < 0.00001, I² = 77%, 6886 participants, 32 trials, very low-quality evidence) and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Only 1/84 trials on the market or under development assessed the effects of DAAs on health-related quality of life (SF-36 mental score and SF-36 physical score).Withdrawn or discontinued DAAs had no evidence of a difference when assessing hepatitis C-related morbidity and all-cause mortality (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.79, P = 0.40, I² = 0%; 5 trials, very low-quality evidence). However, withdrawn DAAs seemed to increase the risk of serious adverse events (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.73, P = 0.001, I² = 0%, 29 trials, very low-quality evidence), and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Most of all outcome results were short-term results; therefore, we could neither confirm nor reject any long-term effects of DAAs. None of the 138 trials provided useful data to assess the effects of DAAs on the remaining secondary outcomes (ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, and hepatocellular carcinoma).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, DAAs on the market or under development do not seem to have any effects on risk of serious adverse events. Simeprevir may have beneficial effects on risk of serious adverse event. In all remaining analyses, we could neither confirm nor reject that DAAs had any clinical effects. DAAs seemed to reduce the risk of no sustained virological response. The clinical relevance of the effects of DAAs on no sustained virological response is questionable, as it is a non-validated surrogate outcome. All trials and outcome results were at high risk of bias, so our results presumably overestimate benefit and underestimate harm. The quality of the evidence was very low.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Cause of Death; Hepacivirus; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans; Nucleic Acid Synthesis Inhibitors; Placebos; Protease Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Safety-Based Drug Withdrawals; Simeprevir
PubMed: 28585310
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012143.pub2 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics May 2017It is unclear whether the efficacy and long-term outcome of treating patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV)-positive cirrhosis with the new protease inhibitors will... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
It is unclear whether the efficacy and long-term outcome of treating patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV)-positive cirrhosis with the new protease inhibitors will extend to those with Child C cirrhosis.
AIM
To assess the effectiveness of the interferon-free regimens in Child C cirrhotic patients with HCV infection.
METHODS
A systematic Medline search was conducted to retrieve studies describing the treatment of Child C patients with direct-acting agents. Citations from identified studies were cross-referenced and abstracts from European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) and American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD) meetings were checked. Extracted data were evaluated using a meta-analysis to calculate a weighted response rate.
RESULTS
Seven full-text records and two conference abstracts were retained for analysis from the 649 records identified. Data from an Italian real-life trial were also interrogated. Information on treatment outcome was available for 228 of the 240 Child C patients evaluated in the 10 trials. Overall, the weighted mean sustained virological response (SVR12) was 74.9% (95% CI: 65.6-82.4%). Neither duration of treatment (24 or 12 weeks), nor addition of ribavirin influenced these rates. The weighted SVR12 was 65.4% (95% CI: 46.8-80.2) after sofosbuvir/simeprevir, 76.0% (95% CI: 54.4-89.3%) after sofosbuvir/daclatasvir and 83.0% (95% CI: 73.4-89.6) after sofosbuvir/ledipasvir. Some studies did not provide information on the rate of post-treatment relapse or functional improvement. However, in those studies that did provide such data, a relapse was documented in 12.1% of patients and an improvement of ≥2 points on the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score in 61.1% of patients.
CONCLUSION
The improvement in MELD scores strongly suggests HCV-positive patients with Child C cirrhosis should be treated with these agents.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Hepatitis C; Humans; Interferons; Liver Cirrhosis; Protease Inhibitors
PubMed: 28261822
DOI: 10.1111/apt.14017 -
Expert Review of Gastroenterology &... Nov 2016Sofosbuvir (SOF) with simeprevir (SIM) combination was the first interferon-free regimen that reached optimal results in terms of sustained viral response (SVR). Areas... (Review)
Review
Sofosbuvir (SOF) with simeprevir (SIM) combination was the first interferon-free regimen that reached optimal results in terms of sustained viral response (SVR). Areas covered: A systematic review of the scientific literature concerning the effects that the SOF/SIM combination had on hepatitis C genotype 1 patients yielded 771 references. After the revision process, four clinical trials and 15 observational studies met the inclusion criteria; in total, these studies involved 5,766 patients. The SVR ranged from 67% to 100% depending on the patients' viral subtype and cirrhosis status. Adverse effects were common, but treatment discontinuation related to drug toxicity occurred in less than 5% of cases. Expert commentary: The SOF/SIM combination exhibits efficacy and tolerability profiles that are similar to those of the other available interferon-free combinations used for non-cirrhotic genotype 1b patients. Meanwhile, for patients with advanced cirrhosis or genotype 1a, this approach cannot be considered a routine treatment option due to the unsatisfactory results.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Drug Resistance, Viral; Drug Therapy, Combination; Genotype; Hepacivirus; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans; Patient Selection; Risk Factors; Simeprevir; Sofosbuvir; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27626505
DOI: 10.1080/17474124.2016.1236682 -
Clinical Drug Investigation Nov 2020Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), as substrates of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 and/or P-glycoprotein, are susceptible to drug-drug interactions (DDIs). Hepatitis C...
BACKGROUND
Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), as substrates of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 and/or P-glycoprotein, are susceptible to drug-drug interactions (DDIs). Hepatitis C direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs), via P-glycoprotein or CYP3A4 inhibition, may increase DOAC exposure with relevant bleeding risk. We performed a systematic review on DDIs between DOACs and DAAs.
METHODS
Two reviewers independently identified studies through electronic databases, until 7 July 2020, supplementing the search by reviewing conference abstracts and the ClinicalTrials.gov website.
RESULTS
Of 1386 identified references, four articles were finally included after applying the exclusion criteria. Three phase I clinical studies in healthy volunteers assessed interactions between dabigatran and glecaprevir/pibrentasvir, odalasvir/simeprevir, or sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir, showing an increase in the dabigatran area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) by 138%, 103%, and 161%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
DOACs and DAAs are under-investigated for DDI risk. Real-world studies are needed to assess the clinical relevance of the pharmacokinetic interactions with dabigatran and describe the actual spectrum of possible DDIs between DAAs and other DOACs.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Antiviral Agents; Cytochrome P-450 CYP3A; Cytochrome P-450 CYP3A Inhibitors; Drug Interactions; Hepatitis C; Humans
PubMed: 32809123
DOI: 10.1007/s40261-020-00962-y -
Transplant Infectious Disease : An... Apr 2019Comprehensive evaluation of safety and efficacy of different combinations of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) in liver transplant recipients with genotype 1 (GT1)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Comprehensive evaluation of safety and efficacy of different combinations of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) in liver transplant recipients with genotype 1 (GT1) hepatitis C virus (HCV) recurrence remains limited. Therefore, we performed this systematic review and meta-analysis in order to evaluate the clinical outcome of DAA treatment in liver transplant patients with HCV GT1 recurrence.
METHODS
Studies were included if they contained information of 12 weeks sustained virologic response (SVR12) after DAA treatment completion as well as treatment related complications for liver transplant recipients with GT1 HCV recurrence.
RESULTS
We identified 16 studies comprising 885 patients. The overall pooled estimate proportion of SVR12 was 93% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89, 0.96), with moderate heterogeneity observed (τ = 0.01, P < 0.01, I =75%). High tolerability was observed in liver transplant recipients reflected by serious adverse events (sAEs) with pooled estimate proportion of 4% (95% CI: 0.01, 0.07; τ = 0.02, P < 0.01, I = 81%). For subgroup analysis, a total of five different DAA regimens were applied for treating these patients. Sofosbuvir/Ledipasvir (SOF/LDV) led the highest pooled estimate SVR12 proportion, followed by Paritaprevir/Ritonavir/Ombitasivir/Dasabuvir (PrOD), Daclatasvir (DCV)/Simeprevir (SMV) ± Ribavirin (RBV), and SOF/SMV ± RBV, Asunaprevir (ASV)/DCV. There was a tendency for favoring a higher pooled SVR12 proportion in patients with METAVIR Stage F0-F2 of 97% (95% CI: 0.93, 0.99) compared to 85% (95% CI: 0.79, 0.90) for stage F3-F4 (P < 0.01). There was no significant difference between LT recipients treated with or without RBV (P = 0.23).
CONCLUSIONS
Direct-acting antiviral treatment is highly effective and well-tolerated in liver transplant recipients with recurrent GT1 HCV infection.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Genotype; Hepacivirus; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans; Liver Transplantation; Recurrence; Sustained Virologic Response; Transplant Recipients; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30615227
DOI: 10.1111/tid.13047 -
European Journal of Clinical... Jan 2017This study aimed to compare the efficacy among direct-acting antiviral agents (first and second-generation direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs)) with placebo and with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
This study aimed to compare the efficacy among direct-acting antiviral agents (first and second-generation direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs)) with placebo and with standard dual therapy (pegylated interferon + ribavirin (Peg-IFN + RBV)) in terms of rapid virologic response (RVR) and sustained virologic response (SVR) in chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 treatment.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Cochrane Library, SCIELO, and Scopus and conducted a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of boceprevir (BOC), daclatasvir (DCV), grazoprevir, simeprevir (SMV) and telaprevir (TVR), in treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies encompassing 7171 patients were analysed. Associations between DAAs therapies (IFN-free regimens) could not be addressed since no common comparator was found in the RCTs among these associations and the other agents included in the present analysis. All agents were more efficacious than placebo or Peg-IFN + RBV in terms of RVR, while only BOC and SMV showed statistically significant superiority for the SVR outcome when compared to placebo or standard dual therapy. No significant differences between the DAAs were observed. The analysis prioritized treatment with DCV for both efficacy outcomes. Node-splitting analysis showed that our networks are robust (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
The superiority of DAAs over placebo or standard dual therapy with Peg-IFN + RBV was confirmed, indicating the greater efficacy of DCV. This study is the first network meta-analysis that included RVR as an outcome in the evaluation of these agents via indirect comparison. Further investigation should be carried out addressing safety and tolerability outcomes.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Genotype; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans; Interferons; Network Meta-Analysis; Polyethylene Glycols; Protease Inhibitors; Ribavirin; Sustained Virologic Response
PubMed: 27757504
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-016-2146-6 -
Expert Review of Gastroenterology &... Dec 2018High prices of second-generation direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients led to reimbursement decisions based on...
High prices of second-generation direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients led to reimbursement decisions based on cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Areas covered: We performed a systematic review of cost-utility analyses (CUA) comparing interventions with second-generation DAA therapies with no treatment, and with previous therapies for chronic HCV patients until July 2017. A total of 36 studies were included: 30 studies from the perspective of the healthcare payer, 3 from the societal perspective, and 3 did not report the perspective. For genotype 1, the highest number of ICER comparison corresponds to sofosbuvir (SOF) triple therapy and SOF-based combinations which reported a cost per QALY systematically ranging from negative to lower than US$100,000 when compared with no treatment or dual therapy or Simeprevir triple therapy. Expert commentary: Selected studies may be overestimating the true cost per QALY of second-generation DAAs in the treatment of HCV, mainly because of neglecting non-healthcare costs, using official list prices which are higher than actual transaction prices and not adopting the long run drug price in a dynamic approach. In addition, the impact of important price reductions of several DAAs in recent years on cost per QALY should be considered.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Drug Costs; Drug Therapy, Combination; Genotype; Hepacivirus; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans; Models, Economic; Quality of Life; Sustained Virologic Response; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30791790
DOI: 10.1080/17474124.2018.1540929