scholarly journals CIHR Canadian HIV Trials Network Co-Infection and Concurrent Diseases Core: Updated Canadian Guidelines for the Treatment of Hepatitis C Infection in HIV-hepatitis C Coinfected Adults

2014 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 311-320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Hull ◽  
Stephen Shafran ◽  
Alice Tseng ◽  
Pierre Giguère ◽  
Marina B Klein ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) coinfection occurs in 20% to 30% of Canadians living with HIV and is responsible for a heavy burden of morbidity and mortality. Management of HIV-HCV coinfection is more complex due to the accelerated progression of liver disease, the timing and nature of antiretroviral and HCV therapy, mental health and addictions management, socioeconomic obstacles and drug-drug interactions between new HCV direct-acting antiviral therapies and antiretroviral regimens.OBJECTIVE: To update national standards for the management of HCV-HIV coinfected adults in the Canadian context.METHODS: A standing working group with specific clinical expertise in HIV-HCV coinfection was convened by The Canadian Institute of Health Research HIV Trials Network to review recently published data regarding HCV antiviral treatments and to update the Canadian HIV-HCV coinfection guidelines.RESULTS: Recent data suggest that the gap in sustained virological response rates between HCV monoinfection and HIV-HCV coinfection has been eliminated with newer HCV antiviral regimens. All HIV-HCV coinfected individuals should be assessed for HCV therapy. First-line treatment for genotypes 1 through 6 includes pegylated interferon and weight-based ribavirin dosing plus the nucleotide sofosbuvir for 12 weeks. Sofosbuvir in combination with the protease inhibitor simeprevir is another first-line consideration for genotype 1 infection. Sofosbuvir with ribavirin for 12 weeks (genotype 2) and 24 weeks (genotype 3) is also recommended as first-line treatment.DISCUSSION: Recommendations may not supersede individual clinical judgement.

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 92-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lina Weiss ◽  
Kerstin Wustmann ◽  
Mariam Semmo ◽  
Markus Schwerzmann ◽  
Nasser Semmo

A sofosbuvir/ledipasvir combination is part of a first-line treatment of hepatitis C. However, in patients concurrently treated with amiodarone, cardiac side effects have been described, resulting in an official warning in 2015 by the American Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency when combining those substances. This deprived numerous hepatitis C patients with concurrent cardiovascular problems of receiving this highly effective treatment. Here we present a treatment alternative with an elbasvir/grazoprevir regimen, based on our successful treatment of a patient under concurrent amiodarone therapy. Our observations indicate that patients treated with amiodarone can finally benefit from effective antiviral therapy.


Hepatology ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 211-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thierry Poynard ◽  
John McHutchison ◽  
Zachary Goodman ◽  
Mei-Hsiu Ling ◽  
Janice Albrecht

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (17) ◽  
pp. 1-90
Author(s):  
Graham S Cooke ◽  
Sarah Pett ◽  
Leanne McCabe ◽  
Christopher Jones ◽  
Richard Gilson ◽  
...  

Background High cure rates with licensed durations of therapy for chronic hepatitis C virus suggest that many patients are overtreated. New strategies in individuals who find it challenging to adhere to standard treatment courses could significantly contribute to the elimination agenda. Objectives To compare cure rates using variable ultrashort first-line treatment stratified by baseline viral load followed by retreatment, with a fixed 8-week first-line treatment with retreatment with or without adjunctive ribavirin. Design An open-label, multicentre, factorial randomised controlled trial. Randomisation Randomisation was computer generated, with patients allocated in a 1 : 1 ratio using a factorial design to each of biomarker-stratified variable ultrashort strategy or fixed duration and adjunctive ribavirin (or not), using a minimisation algorithm with a probabilistic element. Setting NHS. Participants A total of 202 adults (aged ≥ 18 years) infected with chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1a/1b or 4 for ≥ 6 months, with a detectable plasma hepatitis C viral load and no significant fibrosis [FibroScan® (Echosens, Paris, France) score F0–F1 or biopsy-proven minimal fibrosis], a hepatitis C virus viral load < 10,000,000 IU/ml, no previous exposure to direct-acting antiviral therapy for this infection and not pregnant. Patients co-infected with human immunodeficiency virus were eligible if human immunodeficiency virus viral load had been < 50 copies/ml for > 24 weeks on anti-human immunodeficiency virus drugs. Interventions Fixed-duration 8-week first-line therapy compared with variable ultrashort first-line therapy, initially for 4–6 weeks (continuous scale) stratified by screening viral load (variable ultrashort strategy 1, mean 32 days of treatment) and then, subsequently, for 4–7 weeks (variable ultrashort strategy 2 mean 39 days of duration), predominantly with ombitasvir, paritaprevir, ritonavir (Viekirax®; AbbVie, Chicago, IL, USA), and dasabuvir (Exviera®; AbbVie, Chicago, IL, USA) or ritonavir. All patients in whom first-line treatment was unsuccessful were immediately retreated with 12 weeks’ sofosbuvir, ledipasvir (Harvoni®, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Foster City, CA, USA) and ribavirin. Main outcome measure The primary outcome was overall sustained virological response (persistently undetectable) 12 weeks after the end of therapy (SVR12). Results A total of 202 patients were analysed. All patients in whom the primary outcome was evaluable achieved SVR12 overall [100% (197/197), 95% confidence interval 86% to 100%], demonstrating non-inferiority between fixed- and variable-duration strategies (difference 0%, 95% confidence interval –3.8% to 3.7%, prespecified non-inferiority margin 4%). A SVR12 following first-line treatment was achieved in 91% (92/101; 95% confidence interval 86% to 97%) of participants randomised to the fixed-duration strategy and by 48% (47/98; 95% confidence interval 39% to 57%) allocated to the variable-duration strategy. However, the proportion achieving SVR12 was significantly higher among those allocated to variable ultrashort strategy 2 [72% (23/32), 95% confidence interval 56% to 87%] than among those allocated to variable ultrashort strategy 1 [36% (24/66), 95% confidence interval 25% to 48%]. Overall, a SVR12 following first-line treatment was achieved by 72% (70/101) (95% confidence interval 65% to 78%) of patients treated with ribavirin and by 68% (69/98) (95% confidence interval 61% to 76%) of those not treated with ribavirin. A SVR12 with variable ultrashort strategies 1 and 2 was 52% (25/48) (95% confidence interval 38% to 65%) with ribavirin, compared with 44% (22/50) (95% confidence interval 31% to 56) without. However, at treatment failure, the emergence of viral resistance was lower with ribavirin [12% (3/26), 95% confidence interval 2% to 30%] than without [38% (11/29), 95% confidence interval 21% to 58%; p = 0.01]. All 10 individuals who became undetectable at day 3 of treatment achieved first-line SVR12 regardless of treatment duration. Five participants in the variable-duration arm and five in the fixed-duration arm experienced serious adverse events (p = 0.69), as did five participants receiving ribavirin and five participants receiving no ribavirin. Conclusions SVR12 rates were significantly higher when ultrashort treatment varied between 4 and 7 weeks, rather than between 4 and 6 weeks. We found no evidence of ribavirin significantly affecting first-line SVR12, with unsuccessful first-line short-course therapy also not compromising subsequent retreatment with sofosbuvir, ledipasvir and ribavirin. Future work A priority for future work needs to be the development and evaluation of robust predictive measures to identify those patients who can be cured with ultrashort courses of therapy. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN37915093, EudraCT 2015-005004-28 and CTA 19174/0370/001-0001. Funding This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, a MRC and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) partnership. This will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 8, No. 17. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 294-294
Author(s):  
Jennifer Allison ◽  
Natalie Charnley ◽  
Robert Stevenson ◽  
Tom Waddell ◽  
Manon Rhys Pillai

294 Background: The combination of the immune checkpoint inhibitor avelumab and VEGF-targeted, antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor axitinib (AA) has demonstrated superior PFS and ORR compared to sunitinib in patients with mRCC and is an option for first line treatment across all IMDC risk scores. In this retrospective review we report our real world experience of this combination in three cancer centres in the Northwest of England. Methods: Treatment naïve mRCC patients receiving AA through the Early Access to Medicine Scheme at 3 cancer sites in the UK between May 2019 and July 2020 were identified. Primary outcomes of interest include overall response rate (ORR), adverse events (AEs) and preliminary survival observations. Results: A total of 44 patients were identified with a median follow up of 6.9 months (0.8-13.5 mo). Median age was 68 (48-81); 68% were male. The patients’ adult comorbidity evaluation score (ACE-27) was calculated: 0 = 43%, 1 = 30%, 2 = 7% and 3 = 20% . 45%, 48% and 7% of patients had favourable (F), intermediate (I) and poor (P) IMDC risk scores respectively. All had clear cell histology with 16% demonstrating sarcomatoid change. Most patients had undergone a nephrectomy (70%) and 36% had a single organ site of metastatic disease. ORR in the whole cohort was 60% (CR 5%, PR 55%, SD 25%, PD 2%, NE 13 %). Median time to first response was 2.6 months (0.6- 8.2mo). At time of data cut-off, 64% of patients remain on treatment (80% F, 48% I and 67% P). 14% of patients discontinued treatment due to disease progression while 22% stopped due to toxicity. The majority of patients (68%) continued axitinib at the starting dose of 5mg BD. Dose escalation of axitinib was possible in 9% patients while 23% needed a dose reduction due to toxicities. AEs were observed in 36 (82%) patients (G3 36%); the commonest being mucositis 30%; hypertension 23% (G3 11%); fatigue 25%; thyroid dysfunction 18%; diarrhoea 20% (G3 5%); hepatitis 20% (G3 11%). 9% of patients experienced an infusion reaction to avelumab. Overall, 9 (20%) patients received steroids for suspected immune related adverse events (irAEs); 6 (14%) were managed as G3≤ irAEs. 9 (20%) patients required inpatient admission due to AEs; 5 (11%) were associated with irAEs. Of the patients who discontinued AA treatment, 50% received subsequent therapy (12.5%, 75% and 12.5% receiving combination checkpoint inhibitor therapy, other VEFG TKi and TKi/MTOR combination respectively). 4 patients remain on active surveillance with no evidence of progression. Conclusions: Our early experience of AA in this real world setting reports comparable clinical responses to the published data. Treatment is well tolerated, with lower than expected levels of G3 or above AEs which is reassuring in a non-trial selected population. Follow-up is ongoing and updated efficacy and safety outcomes will be presented.


2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14705-e14705
Author(s):  
Rozana Abdul Rahman ◽  
MinYuen Teo ◽  
Felicity McDonnell ◽  
Raymond S. McDermott

e14705 Background: There are a number of options for first line treatment for AGC. We sought to review the efficacy and tolerability of FOLFOX (F) in AGC, and compare outcomes with anthracycline-based (A) ctx-treated patients (pts). Methods: Pts with AGC treated with F and A (EOX and ECF) were identified from institutional database. Pt. demographics, disease characteristics and treatment details were extracted from medical charts and pharmacy database. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from commencement of ctx to radiographic evidence of progression and death, respectively, estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Comparisons were made via log-rank method. Other descriptive statistics calculated via t-test or chi-square methods as appropriate. Results: Between July 05 and December 11, 27 pts were treated with F. Twenty-one (77.8%) were male and median age was 68yrs (range: 42 – 77). ECOG performance status was 0 -1 in 24 pts (88.9%) and 2 in 3 (11.1%). Median Charlson score prior to metastatic disease was 2 (range: 0 – 3). Three had relapsed disease and another three had locally-advanced disease. Sites of metastatic disease were liver (12), peritoneum (12), non-regional nodes (2) and lungs (2). Median number of cycles of F was 5 (range: 1 - 12), 51.8% of pts completed ≥10 cycles, while the rest discontinued treatment due to disease progression (33%) and toxicities (14.8%). 21 pts (77.8%) required dose reduction and 17 (63%) experienced treatment delay. Fourteen (51.8%), 6 and 2 pts had 2nd, 3rd and 4th line of ctx, respectively. Median PFS was 7.2 mos and median OS is 9.7 mos. Sixteen pts were treated with A. Pts were significantly younger (p=0.002) but other characteristics were similar. Median PFS with A was 6.6 mos and median OS was 9.2 mos. The hazard ratio (F vs A) for PFS was 1.11 (95% CI 0.56 to 2.18, p = 0.77) and for OS was 0.73 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.51, p = 0.40). Conclusions: Despite an older pts cohort with co-morbidities, high percentage of treatment delays and dose reductions, our data suggest that significant percentage of pts were able to complete ≥10 cycles of F and subsequent therapies. Outcomes are comparable to our A cohort and published data.


2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 217-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Hull ◽  
Marina Klein ◽  
Stephen Shafran ◽  
Alice Tseng ◽  
Pierre Giguère ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) coinfection occurs in 20% to 30% of Canadians living with HIV, and is responsible for a heavy burden of morbidity and mortality. HIV-HCV management is more complex due to the accelerated progression of liver disease, the timing and nature of antiretroviral and HCV therapy, mental health and addictions management, socioeconomic obstacles and drug-drug interactions between new HCV direct-acting antiviral therapies and antiretroviral regimens.OBJECTIVE: To develop national standards for the management of HCV-HIV coinfected adults in the Canadian context.METHODS: A panel with specific clinical expertise in HIV-HCV co-infection was convened by The CIHR HIV Trials Network to review current literature, existing guidelines and protocols. Following broad solicitation for input, consensus recommendations were approved by the working group, and were characterized using a Class (benefit verses harm) and Level (strength of certainty) quality-of-evidence scale.RESULTS: All HIV-HCV coinfected individuals should be assessed for HCV therapy. Individuals unable to initiate HCV therapy should initiate antiretroviral therapy to slow liver disease progression. Standard of care for genotype 1 is pegylated interferon and weight-based ribavirin dosing plus an HCV protease inhibitor; traditional dual therapy for 24 weeks (for genotype 2/3 with virological clearance at week 4); or 48 weeks (for genotypes 2–6). Therapy deferral for individuals with mild liver disease may be considered. HIV should not be considered a barrier to liver transplantation in coinfected patients.DISCUSSION: Recommendations may not supersede individual clinical judgement.


2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-33
Author(s):  
Irina V. Poddubnaya ◽  
Lyubov S. Al-Radi ◽  
Tatyana E. Byalik ◽  
Kamil D. Kaplanov ◽  
Valentina Z. Molostvova ◽  
...  

Over the past decade, we have seen a significant change in modern approaches in the first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The CLL-10 study data established the FCR regimen as the treatment of choice for younger patients with limited comorbidities, while for patients older than 65 years, the BR regimen is more often considered as less toxic one. According to published data, 46% of patients with newly diagnosed CLL have comorbidities. Moreover, high-risk patients with del(17p) and/or TP53 mutation do not have response on immunochemotherapy (ICT) most often. Thus, about 1/2 of the patients cannot be treated or will not respond to standard ICT regimens. Targeted therapy with Brutons tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors is an important option of the first-line treatment of patients with CLL. Acalabrutinib is a highly selective second-generation BTK inhibitor that does not inhibit EGFR, ITK or TEC targets. Acalabrutinib in combination with obinutuzumab or as monotherapy can be considered as a highly effective and safe option of the first line of CLL therapy. Based on the hight selectivity of the agent, acalabrutinib can be considered as the preferable option for patients who are not eligible for ICT, including patients with commodities, such as cardiovascular diseases or risk factors for their development.


2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 93
Author(s):  
Graham S. Cooke ◽  
Sarah Pett ◽  
Leanne McCabe ◽  
Chris Jones ◽  
Richard Gilson ◽  
...  

Background: The world health organization (WHO) has identified the need for a better understanding of which patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) can be cured with ultrashort course HCV therapy. Methods: A total of 202 individuals with chronic HCV were randomised to fixed-duration shortened therapy (8 weeks) vs variable-duration ultrashort strategies (VUS1/2). Participants not cured following first-line treatment were retreated with 12 weeks’ sofosbuvir/ledipasvir/ribavirin. The primary outcome was sustained virological response 12 weeks (SVR12) after first-line treatment and retreatment. Participants were factorially randomised to receive ribavirin with first-line treatment. Results: All evaluable participants achieved SVR12 overall (197/197, 100% [95% CI 98-100]) demonstrating non-inferiority between fixed-duration and variable-duration strategies (difference 0% [95% CI -3.8%, +3.7%], 4% pre-specified non-inferiority margin). First-line SVR12 was 91% [86%-97%] (92/101) for fixed-duration vs 48% [39%-57%] (47/98) for variable-duration, but was significantly higher for VUS2 (72% [56%-87%] (23/32)) than VUS1 (36% [25%-48%] (24/66)). Overall, first-line SVR12 was 72% [65%-78%] (70/101) without ribavirin and 68% [61%-76%] (69/98) with ribavirin (p=0.48). At treatment failure, the emergence of viral resistance was lower with ribavirin (12% [2%-30%] (3/26)) than without (38% [21%-58%] (11/29), p=0.01). Conclusions: Unsuccessful first-line short-course therapy did not compromise retreatment with sofosbuvir/ledipasvir/ribavirin (100% SVR12). SVR12 rates were significantly increased when ultrashort treatment varied between 4-7 weeks rather than 4-6 weeks. Ribavirin significantly reduced resistance emergence in those failing first-line therapy. ISRCTN Registration: 37915093 (11/04/2016).


2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 93
Author(s):  
Graham S. Cooke ◽  
Sarah Pett ◽  
Leanne McCabe ◽  
Chris Jones ◽  
Richard Gilson ◽  
...  

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) has identified the need for a better understanding of which patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) can be cured with ultrashort course HCV therapy. Methods: A total of 202 individuals with chronic HCV were randomised to fixed-duration shortened therapy (8 weeks) vs variable-duration ultrashort strategies (VUS1/2). Participants not cured following first-line treatment were retreated with 12 weeks’ sofosbuvir/ledipasvir/ribavirin. The primary outcome was sustained virological response 12 weeks (SVR12) after first-line treatment and retreatment. Participants were factorially randomised to receive ribavirin with first-line treatment. Results: All evaluable participants achieved SVR12 overall (197/197, 100% [95% CI 98-100]) demonstrating non-inferiority between fixed-duration and variable-duration strategies (difference 0% [95% CI -3.8%, +3.7%], 4% pre-specified non-inferiority margin). First-line SVR12 was 91% [86%-97%] (92/101) for fixed-duration vs 48% [39%-57%] (47/98) for variable-duration, but was significantly higher for VUS2 (72% [56%-87%] (23/32)) than VUS1 (36% [25%-48%] (24/66)). Overall, first-line SVR12 was 72% [65%-78%] (70/101) without ribavirin and 68% [61%-76%] (69/98) with ribavirin (p=0.48). At treatment failure, the emergence of viral resistance was lower with ribavirin (12% [2%-30%] (3/26)) than without (38% [21%-58%] (11/29), p=0.01). Conclusions: Unsuccessful first-line short-course therapy did not compromise retreatment with sofosbuvir/ledipasvir/ribavirin (100% SVR12). SVR12 rates were significantly increased when ultrashort treatment varied between 4-7 weeks rather than 4-6 weeks. Ribavirin significantly reduced resistance emergence in those failing first-line therapy. ISRCTN Registration: 37915093 (11/04/2016).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document