An interferon-free antiviral regimen for HCV after liver transplantation

Brief Report: Significant Decreases in Both Total and Unbound Lopinavir and Amprenavir Exposures During Coadministration: ACTG Protocol A5143/A5147s Results

This secondary analysis explored changes in protein-unbound concentrations of lopinavir and amprenavir when coadministered in HIV-infected subjects. Total and unbound pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated and compared between subjects receiving each agent alone and coadministration. When coadministered, unbound and total concentrations decrease. Coadministration significantly increased lopinavir unbound clearance, while significant changes in fraction unbound (fu) were not detected. For amprenavir, significant increases in fu and unbound clearance occurred with coadministration. This demonstrates the complex nature of drug-drug interactions between highly protein-bound, CYP-metabolized drugs, and the need to measure unbound concentrations in disease states such as hepatitis C, where such agents are coadministered.

V Consensus Meeting of the Spanish Society for Liver Transplant on high-risk recipients, immunosupression scenarios and management of hepatocarcinoma on the transplant waiting list

With the aim to promote the elaboration of consensus documents on state of the art topics in liver transplantation with multidisciplinary management, the Spanish Society for Liver Transplantation (SETH) organized the V Consensus Meeting with the participation of experts from all the Spanish liver transplant programs. In this edition, the following topics were revised, and we present the summary: 1. High-risk receptors; 2. Immunosuppression scenarios; and 3. Management of the patient with hepatocarcinoma in the waiting list.

Drug-Drug Interactions With Novel All Oral Interferon-Free Antiviral Agents in a Large Real-World Cohort

BACKGROUND

With the approval of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs), the management of drug-drug interactions (DDIs) has become an important challenge while treating individuals with hepatitis C. To date, the potential of causing DDIs for the recently approved DAAs has not been systematically investigated. We aimed to assess the clinical significance of DDI between the regular outpatient medications and DAA therapies in a large real-world cohort.

METHODS

Overall, 261 hepatitis C virus monoinfected patients who were selected for DAA therapy at 2 intervals between 2011 and 2014 were asked about their regular outpatient medications. The potential for DDIs between all these drugs and sofosbuvir/ribavirin, ledipasvir/sofosbuvir, sofosbuvir/daclatasvir, sofosbuvir/simeprevir, ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir ± dasabuvir as well as boceprevir and telaprevir triple therapy was assessed using www.hep-druginteractions.org and the relevant prescribing information.

RESULTS

The 261 patients took a median number of 2 drugs (range 0-15); 20% of patients did not take any medication. Sofosbuvir/ribavirin had the lowest risk to cause a potentially significant DDI (9.6%). In contrast, for ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir ± dasabuvir potentially significant DDIs could be expected in 66.3% of the patients. Significant DDIs for sofosbuvir/simeprevir would be expected in 31.4%, for sofosbuvir/daclatasvir in 36.8%, and for sofosbuvir/ledipasvir in 40.2%. Proton pump inhibitors, thyroid hormones, and dihydropyridine derivatives were frequently used and presented a risk of interacting with the antiviral regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant number of patients are at risk for DDIs if treated with the recently approved DAA regimens. A careful evaluation of potential DDI is essential to prevent adverse effects or unnecessary risk of treatment failure.

New hepatitis C therapies for special patient populations

INTRODUCTION

Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection has become a curable disease. More than 90% sustained virologic response rates have been obtained with 8-24 weeks of treatment with distinct combinations of direct-acting antivirals (DAA) in most registration trials. However, outcomes in real-world patients tend to be lower and treatment of special patient populations is often challenging.

AREAS COVERED

We address the treatment of chronic hepatitis C with DAA in major special patient populations, such as HIV-positive persons, transplant recipients, patients with advanced cirrhosis, renal insufficiency, hepatitis B or D coinfection, injection drug users (IDUs) and prior DAA failures.

EXPERT OPINION

Drug interactions between DAA and medications given to persons with HIV infection or transplant recipients can result in treatment failure and adverse events. Severe organ dysfunction as in kidney insufficiency or decompensated cirrhosis may lead to DAA overexposure and toxicities. Dysfunctional social circumstances and behavior are associated to poor drug adherence and increased risk for HCV re-infection in active IDUs. Finally, DAA response might be impaired by viral interference in patients with hepatitis B or D coinfection or drug resistance in HCV either at baseline or after prior DAA failures.

Timing of Antiviral Therapy in Candidates for Liver Transplant for Hepatitis C and Hepatocellular Carcinoma

OBJECTIVES

Hepatitis C virus infection is the most common underlying reason for hepatocellular carcinoma and indication for liver transplant. The increased availability of non-interferon-based therapy has expanded the number of treatment-eligible patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used a decision analysis model to compare 2 strategies of treating hepatitis C virus. Included patients were followed for 1 year after liver transplant. The probabilities and costs were obtained from a literature review, an expert panel, and our institution's experience. Sensitivity analyses were performed on all variables.

RESULTS

Our model demonstrated that it would be less costly to treat patients after liver transplant than to treat patients while they wait for transplant. When we compared baseline values, the cost difference between the 2 strategies was $25,011 per patient and $41,535 per sustained viral response. Overall survival was 60.1% for both strategies. Our model was robust across most of the variables tested in the sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicated that there is no substantial pharmacoeconomic or survival advantage of treating hepatitis C virus in patients with compensated cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma before liver transplant versus after transplant.

Profile of paritaprevir/ritonavir/ombitasvir plus dasabuvir in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1 infection

Over the last several years, many advances have been made in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection with the development of direct-acting antivirals. Paritaprevir/ritonavir/ombitasvir with dasabuvir (PrOD) is a novel combination of a nonstructural (NS) 3/4A protein inhibitor boosted by ritonavir, an NS5A protein inhibitor, and an NS5B nonnucleoside polymerase inhibitor. This review aims to discuss the pharmacology, efficacy, safety, drug interactions, and viral drug resistance of PrOD in the treatment of HCV genotype 1 infections. Phase I, II, and III human and animal studies that describe the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety of PrOD for HCV were identified and included. Studies that evaluated patients without cirrhosis (n=2,249) and with cirrhosis (n=422) demonstrated that PrOD for 12 or 24 weeks was effective at achieving sustained virologic response rates (>90%) in patients with genotype 1a or 1b HCV infection. Although indicated for the treatment of HCV genotype 1 infection, PrOD is also recommended for the treatment of HCV in patients coinfected with HIV. Additionally, promising data exist for the use of PrOD in liver-transplant recipients. The most common adverse drug events associated with PrOD included nausea, pruritus, insomnia, diarrhea, asthenia, dry skin, vomiting, and anemia. The high efficacy rates seen coupled with a favorable side effect profile seen with PrOD with or without ribavirin have led to its addition as a recommended treatment regimen for HCV genotype 1 infection.

Interferon-free, direct-acting antiviral therapy for chronic hepatitis C

The treatment environment for chronic hepatitis C has undergone a revolution, particularly in genotype 1. Gone are interferon-based therapy and its associated tolerability challenges, inadequate response rates and numerous baseline factors that affect response to therapy. New and emerging treatment regimens employ all-oral combinations of direct-acting antiviral agents, and results of clinical trials suggest that these regimens routinely achieve cure rates >90%, even in patients who failed prior interferon-based triple therapy. In 2015, three all-oral FDA-approved regiments will be available for genotype 1 (sofosbuvir /ledipasvir, sofosbuvir/simeprevir, and paritaprevir/r/ombitasvir/dasabuvir). Furthermore, new treatment combinations appear to be more tolerable and require shorter duration of therapy. We provide an overview of the classes of direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs), the clinical factors affecting their integration into combination therapies and recent findings from trials of such combination therapies in patients with genotype 1 HCV infection.

Current Management of Hepatitis C Virus: Regimens for Peri-Liver Transplant Patients

Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection currently remains the leading indication for liver transplant in the United States. However, recurrent HCV infection after transplant is universal in those who enter transplant with viremia resulting in reduced posttransplant graft and patient survival rates, caused in large part by progressive recurrent HCV disease. Therefore, successful treatment of HCV in the peri-transplant period, either before or after transplant, is paramount in ensuring improved posttransplant outcomes. This article reviews the experience to date treating HCV in wait-listed patients and liver transplant recipients and the unique challenges encountered when treating this population.

Hepatitis C Virus Treatment: Is It Possible To Cure All Hepatitis C Virus Patients?

The recent advances in hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapeutics have brought combinations of direct acting antiviral medications that offer interferon-free, well-tolerated regimens with sustained virologic response rates greater than 90% in clinical trials for many patient groups. The successes have prompted discussions regarding cure for all patients. These regimens have already demonstrated the ability to cure previously challenging patient groups, including human immunodeficiency virus-HCV coinfection, decompensated cirrhosis, and post-liver transplantation. Limitations exist in the current portfolio of agents, with suboptimal outcomes for genotype 3 and limited data in genotypes 5 and 6. More data are urgently needed in patients with chronic kidney disease and in children. With ongoing developments, highly effective regimens for all these patient groups are within reach. To deliver HCV treatment throughout the world and particularly in low- and middle-income countries, regimens need to be affordable but also pan-genotypic, well-tolerated, and delivered once daily for 4-8 weeks. With such a regimen, cure for all patients would then hinge on the ability to identify patients with HCV infection and deliver treatment within their communities. This review will discuss the strategies that will be necessary to realize this opportunity to cure all persons with HCV infection.

Hepatitis C virus treatment in the real world: optimising treatment and access to therapies

Chronic HCV infections represent a major worldwide public health problem and are responsible for a large proportion of liver related deaths, mostly because of HCV-associated hepatocellular carcinoma and cirrhosis. The treatment of HCV has undergone a rapid and spectacular revolution. In the past 5 years, the launch of direct acting antiviral drugs has seen sustained virological response rates reach 90% and above for many patient groups. The new treatments are effective, well tolerated, allow for shorter treatment regimens and offer new opportunities for previously excluded groups. This therapeutic revolution has changed the rules for treatment of HCV, moving the field towards an interferon-free era and raising the prospect of HCV eradication. This manuscript addresses the new challenges regarding treatment optimisation in the real world, improvement of antiviral efficacy in 'hard-to-treat' groups, the management of patients whose direct acting antiviral drug treatment was unsuccessful, and access to diagnosis and treatment in different parts of the world.

Keys to long-term care of the liver transplant recipient

Improvements in overall survival early after liver transplantation result in a growing number of patients with the potential for long-term survival. Data available on long-term survival, to date, reflect the situation of patients who received their liver transplant during a very different health-care era. Translating these data into the current medical era of liver transplantation is an important task, as a better understanding of aspects associated with morbidity and mortality is fundamental in improving the long-term outcome of liver transplant recipients. Malignancy screening, optimal treatment of recurrent disease and adequate management of metabolic disease are crucial contributions to advance patient care. In this Review, data specific to the liver transplant recipient will be evaluated and, in the absence of sufficient evidence at this time, recommendations and guidelines for the general population on management of long-term concerns will be assessed for their applicability after liver transplantation. In addition, other preventive strategies relating to pregnancy, contraception and vaccination are reviewed in detail.

Impact of fibrosis progression on clinical outcome in patients treated for post-transplant hepatitis C recurrence

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Patients who achieve sustained virological response (SVR) following the treatment of post-liver transplant (LT) recurrence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection have improved outcomes. The full impact of eradication of HCV on allograft histology is, however, not clearly known.

METHODS

We studied allograft histology in protocol-based paired liver biopsies in consecutive LT recipients who underwent post-LT treatment of recurrence of HCV.

RESULTS

A total of 116 patients were treated with interferon-based therapy for recurrent HCV. Paired pre-treatment baseline biopsies and post-treatment biopsies were available in 83.2% of patients. SVR was achieved in 37.9% of patients. Among the patients who achieved SVR, 20.5% had progression of fibrosis on post-treatment biopsies vs. 65.5% of patients with non-response/relapse (P < 0.001). The impact of virological response on fibrosis progression was sustained and a similar outcome was observed in the subset of patients who had 4-5 year post-treatment biopsies available. In the SVR group, 12.8% progressed to fibrosis stage ≥3 on post-treatment biopsies vs. 37.9% in the non-response/relapse group (P = 0.001). The 5-year survival in patients with progression of fibrosis 86% vs. 98% among patients who had improvement/stable fibrosis [P = 0.003; HR 3.8 (1.2-11.8)]. A small subset of patients who achieve SVR unfortunately still experience progression of fibrosis, most commonly associated with plasma cell hepatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

In post-transplant patients treated for HCV, SVR is associated with improved graft survival and also with sustained and significant improvement in histological outcome. Importantly, progression of fibrosis still occurred in a small subset of patients who achieved SVR.

Sofosbuvir and simeprevir is effective for recurrent hepatitis C in liver transplant recipients

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Hepatitis C is the most common indication for liver transplantation (LT). Recurrent infection is universal and can lead to progressive liver disease. Widespread use of interferon-based therapy has been limited by intolerability and adverse effects.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of sofosbuvir and simeprevir in the treatment of recurrent hepatitis C in adult (age >18) LT recipients.

RESULTS

Seventy-six percent of the recipients were male and the mean age [±standard deviation (SD)] was 61 (±6.0) years. The mean time (±SD) from LT to treatment initiation was 71.8 (±77.1) months. Of the 26 patients with viral levels measured 4 weeks after starting antiviral therapy, 58% were undetectable. At the end of therapy, viral load was undetectable in all transplant recipients. The 12 week sustained viral response (SVR) was 93%. All recipients were able to complete therapy and no patients required growth factors of blood product transfusion during treatment. No patient required drug interruption of their immunosuppressant therapy.

CONCLUSION

The use of sofosbuvir and simeprevir is efficacious, safe, and tolerable and should be considered in LT recipients with recurrent HCV who are candidates for antiviral therapy.

Efficacy of Sofosbuvir and Daclatasvir in Patients With Fibrosing Cholestatic Hepatitis C After Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis (FCH) is a life-threatening disorder that develops in patients with recurrent hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection after liver transplantation. Until recently, therapeutic options have been limited. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir- and daclatasvir-based regimens.

METHODS

We analyzed data from 23 patients with FCH who participated in a prospective cohort study in France and Belgium of the effects of antiviral agents in patients with recurrence of HCV infection after liver transplantation, from October 2013 through April 2014. Most of the patients had genotype 1 infections that had not responded to previous treatment; 4 patients also were infected with human immunodeficiency virus. Eight patients (37%) had ascites and 15 patients (65%) had bilirubin levels greater than 100 mmol/L; their median serum level of HCV RNA was 7 log IU/mL. The median time between transplantation and treatment initiation was 5 months. Subjects were given either sofosbuvir and daclatasvir (n = 15) or sofosbuvir and ribavirin (n = 8) for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was complete clinical response (survival without re-transplantation, bilirubin level <34 μmol/L, and no ascites or hepatic encephalopathy 36 weeks after treatment began).

RESULTS

All patients survived, without re-transplantation, until week 36. Rapid and dramatic improvements in clinical status were observed. The patients' median bilirubin concentration decreased from 122 μmol/L at baseline to a normal value at week 12 of treatment. Twenty-two patients (96%) had a complete clinical response at week 36. Despite the low rate of rapid virologic response, 22 patients (96%) achieved a sustained virologic response at week 12. The only relapse of HCV infection occurred in a patient with human immunodeficiency virus infection who received sofosbuvir and ribavirin. Tolerance was satisfactory, with no grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to sofosbuvir or daclatasvir and no significant interactions among drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Sofosbuvir therapy with daclatasvir or ribavirin leads to major clinical improvement and high rates of sustained virologic response at week 12 in most patients with recurrence of HCV infection and FCH after liver transplantation. ClinicalTrial.gov no: NCT01944527.

Era of direct acting antivirals in chronic hepatitis C: Who will benefit?

In the era of highly effective direct acting antiviral (DAA) drugs for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C (CHC) infection, where eradication is almost ensured with minimal side effects, all hepatitis C carriers should benefit theoretically. In the real world setting however, only a small proportion will benefit at this time point due to the multiple barriers to accessing therapy. Given that universal treatment is unlikely, treatment with DAAs will likely be restricted to those with the highest health benefits, and for those who can afford the high expense of a treatment course. Those with the highest unmet needs include those who have failed previous interferon-based therapy or who are interferon-ineligible with evidence of active disease, those with advance liver disease, and those with recurrence of hepatitis C after liver transplantation. In the future, the focus should be on increasing access to treatment for those infected with CHC.

Impact of new treatment options for hepatitis C virus infection in liver transplantation

Liver transplant candidates and recipients with hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related liver disease greatly benefit from an effective antiviral therapy. The achievement of a sustained virological response before transplantation can prevent the recurrence of post-transplant HCV disease that occurs universally and correlates with enhanced progression to graft cirrhosis. Previous standard-of-care regimens (e.g., pegylated-interferon plus ribavirin with or without first generation protease inhibitors, boceprevir and telaprevir) displayed suboptimal results and poor tolerance in liver transplant recipients. A new class of potent direct-acting antiviral agents (DAA) characterized by all-oral regimens with minimal side effects has been approved and included in the recent guidelines for the treatment of liver transplant recipients with recurrent HCV disease. Association of sofosbuvir with ribavirin and/or ledipasvir is recommended in liver transplant recipients and patients with decompensated cirrhosis. Other regimens include simeprevir, daclatasvir, and combination of other DAA. Possible interactions should be monitored, especially in coinfected human immunodeficiency virus/HCV patients receiving antiretrovirals.

HCV targeting of patients with cirrhosis

Interferon (IFN)-free treatments are now the treatment of choice for patients with chronic hepatitis C. Previously difficult to treat patients by IFN-containing treatments can now be treated safely by IFN-free therapies. More than 90% of hepatitis C genotype 1 and 4 patients with compensated cirrhosis or after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) can be cured by sofosbuvir combined with simeprevir, daclatasvir or ledipasvir, or by the paritaprevir/ritona-vir/ombitasvir/±dasabuvir (3D) combination. Addition of ribavirin confers to a minimal, if any, benefit to increase SVR. The need for ribavirin is controversial and remains to be studied. The optimal length of treatment is still unknown, and an individual approach may be needed. Most patients require only 12weeks of therapy. The safety of these drugs is not fully explored in patients with decompensated cirrhosis (Child-Pugh C), who should not be treated with protease inhibitors. In cirrhosis hepatitis C virus eradication does not necessarily mean a cure of the disease and patients regularly require follow-up. Drug-drug interactions with immunosuppressant in patients after OLT are easier to manage but still require attention. Better drugs are needed for genotype 3 patients.

Prednisolone does not affect direct-acting antivirals against hepatitis C, but inhibits interferon-alpha production by plasmacytoid dendritic cells

BACKGROUND

Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection compromises long-term outcomes of liver transplantation. Although glucocorticosteroid-based immunosuppression is commonly used, discussion is ongoing on the effect of prednisolone (Pred) on HCV recurrence and response to antiviral therapy post transplantation. Recently, new drugs (direct-acting antivirals) have been approved for the treatment of HCV, however, it remains unknown whether their antiviral activity is affected by Pred. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of Pred on the antiviral activity of asunaprevir (Asu), daclatasvir (Dac), ribavirin (RBV), and interferon-alpha (IFN-α), and on plasmacytoid dendritic cells (PDCs), the main IFN-α-producing immune cells.

METHODS

The effects of Pred and antiviral compounds were tested in both a subgenomic and infectious HCV replication model. Furthermore, effects were tested on human PDCs stimulated with a Toll-like receptor-7 ligand.

RESULT

Pred did not directly affect HCV replication and did not inhibit the antiviral action of Asu, Dac, RBV, or IFN-α. Stimulated PDCs potently suppressed HCV replication. This suppression was reversed by treating PDCs with Pred. Pred significantly decreased IFN-α production by PDCs without affecting cell viability. When Asu and Dac were combined with PDCs, a significant cooperative antiviral effect was observed.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that Pred acts on the antiviral function of PDCs. Pred does not affect the antiviral action of Asu, Dac, RBV, or IFN-α. This implies that there is no contraindication to combine antiviral therapies with Pred in the post-transplantation management of HCV recurrence.

Ombitasvir/Paritaprevir/Ritonavir and Dasabuvir

Each month, subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service receive 5 to 6 well-documented monographs on drugs that are newly released or are in late phase 3 trials. The monographs are targeted to Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committees. Subscribers also receive monthly 1-page summary monographs on agents that are useful for agendas and pharmacy/nursing in-services. A comprehensive target drug utilization evaluation/medication use evaluation (DUE/MUE) is also provided each month. With a subscription, the monographs are sent in print and are also available on-line. Monographs can be customized to meet the needs of a facility. A drug class review is now published monthly with The Formulary Monograph Service. Through the cooperation of The Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy publishes selected reviews in this column. For more information about The Formulary Monograph Service, call The Formulary at 800-322-4349. The May 2015 monograph topics are palbociclib, lenvatinib, nivolumab, ferric pyrophosphate citrate solution, and secukinumab. The Safety MUE is on non-opioid injectable pain or fever medications.

Interferon-Free Hepatitis C Treatment before and after Liver Transplantation: The Role of HCV Drug Resistance

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is one of the leading causes of end-stage liver disease and the main indication for liver transplantation (LT) in most countries. All patients who undergo LT with detectable serum HCV RNA experience graft reinfection progressing to cirrhosis within five years in 20% to 30% of them. Obtaining a sustained virological response (SVR) greatly improves overall and graft survival. Until 2011, standard antiviral therapy using PEGylated interferon (PEG-IFN) and ribavirin (RBV) was the only effective therapy, with an SVR rate around 30% in this setting. For patients infected with genotype 1, first generation NS3/4A protease inhibitors (PIs), boceprevir (BOC) or telaprevir (TVR), associated with PEG-IFN and RBV for 48 weeks have increased the SVR rates to 60% in non-transplant patients. However, tolerability and drug-drug interactions with calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) are both limiting factors of their use in the liver transplant setting. Over recent years, the efficacy of antiviral C therapy has improved dramatically using new direct-acting antiviral (DAA) agents without PEG-IFN and/or RBV, leading to SVR rates over 90% in non-transplant patients. Results available for transplant patients showed a better efficacy and tolerability and less drug-drug interactions than with first wave PIs. However, some infrequent cases of viral resistance have been reported using PIs or NS5A inhibitors pre- or post-LT that can lead to difficulties in the management of these patients.

Multicenter Experience with Boceprevir or Telaprevir to Treat Hepatitis C Recurrence after Liver Transplantation: When Present Becomes Past, What Lessons for Future?

Background and aims

First generation protease inhibitors (PI) with peg-interferon (PEG-IFN) and ribavirin (RBV) have been the only therapy available for hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 infection in most countries for 3 years. We have investigated the efficacy and tolerance of this triple therapy in transplanted patients experiencing a recurrence of HCV infection on the liver graft.

Patients

This cohort study enrolled 81 liver transplant patients (Male: 76%, mean age: 55.8±9.7 years) with severe HCV recurrence (F3 or F4: n = 34 (42%), treatment experienced: n = 44 (54%)), treated with boceprevir (n = 36; 44%) or telaprevir (n = 45; 56%). We assessed the percentages of patients with sustained virological responses 24 weeks after therapy (SVR24), and safety.

Results

The SVR24 rate was 47% (telaprevir: 42%; boceprevir: 53%, P = ns). At baseline, a normal bilirubin level (p = 0.0145) and albumin level >35g/L (p = 0.0372) and an initial RBV dosage of ≥800 mg/day (p = 0.0033) predicted SVR24. During treatment, achieving an early virological response after 12 weeks was the strongest independent factor to predict SVR24 (p<0.0001). A premature discontinuation of anti-HCV therapy due to a serious adverse event (SAE) was observed in 22 patients (27%). Hematological toxicity, infections and deaths were observed in 95%, 28% and 7% of patients, respectively. A history of post-LT antiviral therapy and thrombocytopenia (<50G/L) during treatment were both independent predictors of the occurrence of infections or SAE (p = 0.0169 and p = 0.011).

Conclusions

The use of first generation PI after liver transplantation enabled an SVR24 rate of 47% in genotype 1 patients, but induced a high rate of SAE. The identification of predictive factors for a response to treatment, and the occurrence of SAE, have enabled us to establish limits for the use of this anti-HCV therapy in the transplant setting.

Interferon-free antiviral treatment of chronic hepatitis C in the transplant setting

Interferon-based regimens with first-generation protease inhibitors have a limited efficacy and an unfavorable safety profile. Combination therapies with two or more second-generation direct-acting antivirals plus/minus ribavirin revolutionized treatment strategies in patients chronically infected with hepatitis C virus. In this rapidly evolving era, patients in the transplant setting benefit from interferon-free treatment regimens. Scientific societies can barely keep up with this development, making it necessary to update the clinical guidelines by the American and European Associations for the Study of Liver Diseases within short periods. This review presents and discusses the currently available data of the use of interferon-free treatment in the setting of liver transplantation. However, costs, different reimbursement strategies, and health-care options cannot be answered by guidelines and recommendations from scientific societies. Further investigator-initiated trials are needed to individualize treatment concepts.

Chronic Kidney Disease and Related Long-Term Complications After Liver Transplantation

Liver transplantation is the standard of care for patients with decompensated cirrhosis. Liver transplantation recipients have excellent short-term and long-term outcomes including patient and graft survival. Since the adoption of model for end-stage liver disease (MELD)-based allocation policy, the incidence of post-transplant end stage renal disease has risen significantly. Occurrence of Stage 4 chronic kidney disease and end stage renal disease substantially increases the risk of post-transplant deaths. Because majority of late post-transplant mortality is due to nonhepatic post-transplant comorbidities, personalized care directed toward risk factor modification may further improve post-transplant survival.

Management of HCV in the liver transplant setting

Hepatitis C-related cirrhosis is the main indication for liver transplantation. In the absence of viral eradication, viral recurrence leads to recurrent HCV disease and progression to advanced graft disease in many recipients, particularly those transplanted with subobtimal grafts. Viral eradication is associated with improved outcome whether used pre- or post-transplantation. In the new era of interferon-free regimes, this is now safe and feasible in most transplant candidates and transplant recipients. There are questions that remain unanswered, such as defining the point of no return where clinical improvement does not follow viral eradication or management of treatment failures.

Ledipasvir and Sofosbuvir Plus Ribavirin for Treatment of HCV Infection in Patients With Advanced Liver Disease

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There are no effective and safe treatments for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection of patients who have advanced liver disease.

METHODS

In this phase 2, open-label study, we assessed treatment with the NS5A inhibitor ledipasvir, the nucleotide polymerase inhibitor sofosbuvir, and ribavirin in patients infected with HCV genotypes 1 or 4. Cohort A enrolled patients with cirrhosis and moderate or severe hepatic impairment who had not undergone liver transplantation. Cohort B enrolled patients who had undergone liver transplantation: those without cirrhosis; those with cirrhosis and mild, moderate, or severe hepatic impairment; and those with fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis. Patients were assigned randomly (1:1) to receive 12 or 24 weeks of a fixed-dose combination tablet containing ledipasvir and sofosbuvir, once daily, plus ribavirin. The primary end point was sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after the end of treatment (SVR12).

RESULTS

We enrolled 337 patients, 332 (99%) with HCV genotype 1 infection and 5 (1%) with HCV genotype 4 infection. In cohort A (nontransplant), SVR12 was achieved by 86%-89% of patients. In cohort B (transplant recipients), SVR12 was achieved by 96%-98% of patients without cirrhosis or with compensated cirrhosis, by 85%-88% of patients with moderate hepatic impairment, by 60%-75% of patients with severe hepatic impairment, and by all 6 patients with fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis. Response rates in the 12- and 24-week groups were similar. Thirteen patients (4%) discontinued the ledipasvir and sofosbuvir combination prematurely because of adverse events; 10 patients died, mainly from complications related to hepatic decompensation.

CONCLUSION

The combination of ledipasvir, sofosbuvir, and ribavirin for 12 weeks produced high rates of SVR12 in patients with advanced liver disease, including those with decompensated cirrhosis before and after liver transplantation. ClinTrials.gov: NCT01938430.

Liver transplantation in the context of organ shortage: toward extension and restriction of indications considering recent clinical data and ethical framework

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The scarcity of liver grafts requires to optimize the results of transplantation. Extensions and alternatives of liver transplantation have to be regularly evaluated.

RECENT FINDINGS

Acute-on-chronic liver failure and severe alcoholic hepatitis may represent potential extensions of transplant indications. In these diseases, selected patients could obtain a significant benefit from liver transplantation, whereas long-term outcomes and global impact on waiting lists remain to be evaluated prospectively. Alternatives to transplantation may be represented by recent progress in the management of hepatitis C and the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. In hepatitis C, new drug combinations may improve the disease control, reducing the progression to cirrhosis and also the risk of post-transplant reinfection allowing to anticipate a future decrease in the indications for transplantation and retransplantation in these patients. In hepatocellular carcinoma, thanks to improvements in operative techniques and better identification of prognostic factors of cancer recurrency, surgical resection or radiofrequency destruction could appear now as true alternatives to transplant in highly selected patients.

SUMMARY

Before implementation of these potential changes into decisional algorithms for listing and organ allocation, their consequences, either for patient's individual benefit or for global transplant outcomes, should be closely evaluated using objective long-term end points and taking into account the ethical recommendations for organ transplantation.

Treating fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis C with sofosbuvir and ribavirin: a matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis (FCH) is an uncommon but potentially fatal complication of recurrent hepatitis C (HCV) in liver transplant recipients.

METHODS

We matched the treatment outcomes of 10 liver transplant recipients who developed FCH with those of 10 recipients with recurrent HCV without FCH treated with sofosbuvir and ribavirin.

RESULTS

Baseline mean alanine transaminase, aspartate transaminase, alkaline phosphatase, and total bilirubin were 186 U/L, 197 U/L, 243 U/L, and 6.7 mg/dL, respectively, in the FCH recipients and 82 U/L, 60 U/L, 110 U/L, and 0.99 mg/dL, respectively, in non-FCH recipients. The sustained viral response in FCH and non-FCH recipients was 40% and 80%, respectively. One-yr patient and graft survival rates were 90% and 80%, respectively, in FCH recipients, and 100% in non-FCH recipients. Seven FCH and six non-FCH recipients were treated for anemia with blood transfusion and/or erythropoietin growth factors.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that the use of sofosbuvir and ribavirin is effective and tolerable in liver transplant recipients treated for recurrent FCH. There is a trend of lower sustained viral response, patient survival, and graft survival in the FCH recipients.

Hepatitis C virus-HIV-coinfected patients and liver transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the experience to date and unique challenges associated with liver transplantation in hepatitis C virus (HCV)/HIV-coinfected patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

The prevalence of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma is rising among HIV-infected individuals. With careful patient selection and in the absence of HCV infection, HIV-infected and HIV-uninfected liver transplant recipients have comparable posttransplant outcomes. However, in the presence of HCV infection, patient and graft survival are significantly poorer in HIV-infected recipients, who have a higher risk of aggressive HCV recurrence, acute rejection, sepsis, and multiorgan failure. Outcomes may be improved with careful recipient and donor selection and with the availability of new highly potent all-oral HCV direct acting antivirals (DAAs). Although all-oral DAAs have not been evaluated in HIV/HCV-coinfected transplant patients, HIV does not adversely impact treatment success in nontransplant populations. Therefore, there is great hope that HCV can be successful eradicated in HIV/HCV-coinfected transplant patients and will result in improved outcomes. Careful attention to drug-drug interactions with HIV antiretroviral agents, DAAs, and posttransplant immunosuppressants is required.

SUMMARY

Liver transplant outcomes are poorer in HIV/HCV-coinfected recipients compared with those with HCV-monoinfection. The new HCV DAAs offer tremendous potential to improve outcomes in this challenging population.

Hepatitis C virus infection in nonliver solid organ transplant candidates and recipients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Transplantation is the best treatment for many patients with end-stage organ failure. Hepatitis C infection is prevalent among solid organ candidates and recipients and continues to represent a major source of morbidity and mortality. Prior interferon (IFN)-based therapies have been associated with limited efficacy and high rates of adverse events. Furthermore, prior IFN-based regimens are associated with high rates of allograft rejection limiting their use post-transplant. This review will outline the limited experience with current treatment regimens and how to incorporate the new hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment regimens.

RECENT FINDINGS

The introduction of new direct-acting antiviral (DAA) agents against HCV has dramatically altered the landscape of treatment for HCV. Different all-oral regimens are currently available and are rapidly becoming the standard for treating patients with chronic hepatitis C. Excluding patients with liver disease or those who received liver transplant, those regimens have not been studied in patients awaiting solid organ transplant, or those transplanted.

SUMMARY

The safety and efficacy of DAAs in patients awaiting liver transplant and liver transplant recipients provide us with some insight and guidance on how to use those all-oral IFN-free regimens to allow effective treatment for patients who received or are awaiting nonliver solid organ transplants.

New hepatitis C virus therapies: drug classes and metabolism, drug interactions relevant in the transplant settings, drug options in decompensated cirrhosis, and drug options in end-stage renal disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article will review the new direct acting antiviral agent (DAA) drug classes for the treatment of hepatitis C, how they are combined and the relevant drug-drug interactions in the postliver transplant setting. Treatment options for chronic hepatitis C in patients with decompensated cirrhosis and end-stage renal disease will also be discussed.

RECENT FINDINGS

The availability of new drug classes has increased the treatment options in patients with hepatitis C in the post-transplant settings. Clinical trials have concluded that sofosbuvir (SOF) with ledipasvir (LDV) may be safely administered with calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus, cyclosporine) and rapamycin inhibitors (sirolimus, everolimus). Similarly, paritaprevir/ritonavir, ombitasvir, and dasabuvir may be administered with tacrolimus and cyclosporine though appropriate dose adjustments must be made to the calcineurin inhibitors. In those with decompensated Childs B/C cirrhosis, SOF, SOF and LDV, as well as daclatasvir may be given without dose adjustment. In renal impairment, all DAAs may be used safely down to a glomerular filteration rate (GFR) of 30 ml/min. Simeprevir, paritaprevir, ombitasvir, and dasabuvir may be given for those down to GFR of 15 ml/min. Finally, daclatasvir may be given without dose administration change.

SUMMARY

In summary, DAAs have better tolerability and greater efficacy than interferon-based therapy post-transplant. Drug-drug interactions must be carefully assessed when these newer agents are used for therapy in the postliver transplant settings. Thus far, dose adjustments for DAAs have not been required in chronic kidney disease though data are incomplete in those with severe chronic kidney disease (CKD) or on dialysis. Hepatitis C treatment in those with decompensated cirrhosis results in impaired hepatic metabolism that may affect DAA levels, and clinicians should carefully choose treatment options for Childs B and C cirrhotic patients.

Reappraisal of the hepatitis C virus-positive donor in solid organ transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Hepatitis C virus (HCV)-positive donor allografts may be considered for HCV-positive recipients, but are underutilized. With new effective antiviral treatments, we aim to review data on the use of HCV-positive allografts in solid organ transplantation and place them in the context of the changing HCV landscape.

RECENT FINDINGS

Hepatitis C is the most common indication for liver transplant in the USA and Europe and a significant comorbidity in patients on the waitlist for nonliver solid organ transplantation. Patients with HCV on the waitlist for nonliver solid organ transplantation have worse outcomes compared with those without HCV. However, survival after transplantation is improved compared with those who remain on the waitlist. There has been concern that use of HCV-positive allografts would lead to worse post-transplant outcomes. However, more recent data suggest that transplant outcomes for recipients who accept HCV-positive donor allografts may be comparable with those who receive HCV-negative allografts. Emerging treatments to eradicate HCV have further improved the course of HCV-positive individuals, with improved efficacy and reduced side-effects.

SUMMARY

In view of the changing landscape of hepatitis C treatment and reduced wait time on the transplant waiting lists for those accepting HCV-positive donors, future use of select HCV-positive donors in solid organ transplantation should be encouraged.

What does the pharmacological future of treating chronic hepatitis C look like?

Development of direct acting antivirals has revolutionized the standard of care for the treatment of hepatitis C virus. New interferon-free regimens provide sustained virologic response rates of >90% in many genotype 1 patients with only 12 weeks of oral therapy. This review will provide a brief overview of current standards of care with a summary of the evidence supporting the recommended combinations of direct acting antivirals. We will discuss the direction of future therapies, with strategies for shorter durations of therapy and new all-oral combinations in the pipeline.

Advances in hepatitis C therapies

INTRODUCTION

The recent development of new direct acting antivirals constitutes a clinical revolution in the field of hepatitis C therapy. Different drugs with direct antiviral effects and very high potency have been developed, changing the current scenario and prognosis of hepatitis C-related liver disease. This review aims to clarify the current stage of the different antiviral strategies in patients with chronic hepatitis C infection by analyzing the specific efficacy of each combination.

AREAS COVERED

Data have been extracted from the most important published clinical trials, cumulative real-world experience reports and data from the most relevant studies presented in the last international meetings (European and American International Liver Congresses). In addition, data from the recently updated international guidelines have also been included.

EXPERT OPINION

Although there are many differences in health-care budgets among countries in the world which will surely compromise drug availability and treatment decisions, this review aims to give a general and brief recommendation to help treating physicians to choose the best option to treat hepatitis C.

Treatment Considerations for Unique Patient Populations With HCV Genotype 1 Infection

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 in certain populations of patients that require further considerations before therapy initiation.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic electronic literature search using the MEDLINE database was performed using the search terms hepatitis C, chronic hepatitis C, drug therapy, end stage liver disease, liver transplantation, HIV, hepatitis B, African Americans, renal insufficiency, obesity, pregnancy, and pediatrics.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

English language studies from January 1985 to March 2015 were considered. Additional references were identified from ongoing trials obtained from clinicaltrials.gov, conference proceedings, online databases, and citations in relevant review articles.

DATA SELECTION

Direct-acting antivirals are first-line recommendations for the treatment of HCV genotype 1 infection, and these include combinations of sofosbuvir, simeprevir, ledipasvir/sofosbuvir, ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir plus dasabuvir, and ribarvirin. Historical and clinical data focusing on the treatment of HCV with these agents in the following populations were selected: decompensated cirrhosis, post-liver transplant, HIV, African Americans, obesity, hepatitis B coinfection, renal impairment, pregnancy, and pediatrics.

CONCLUSION

Depending on the population studied, clinicians must consider differences in efficacy outcomes, potential drug interactions, and adverse effects that patients may experience.

Sofosbuvir and Simeprevir Therapy for Recurrent Hepatitis C Infection After Liver Transplantation

Antiviral therapy for recurrent hepatitis C in liver transplant recipients has been associated with low efficacy, poor tolerability, and drug-drug interactions. Recent approval of various hepatitis C direct-acting antivirals has resulted in improvement of these parameters. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of 12 week all-oral interferon- and ribavirin-free therapy with sofosbuvir and simeprevir.

METHODS

Thirty-two genotype 1 liver transplant recipients with recurrent hepatitis C infection were retrospectively analyzed. All patients received 12 weeks of sofosbuvir 400 mg and simeprevir 150 mg orally daily. The primary endpoint was sustained virologic response 12 weeks after treatment.

RESULTS

Sustained virologic response 12 weeks after treatment was achieved in 30 of 32 (94%; 95% confidence interval, 79-99%) patients. All patients enjoyed on-treatment virological response. Both patients who relapsed were cirrhotic, previously treated with Q80K polymorphism. Significant improvements in alkaline phosphatase, albumin, alanine aminotransferase levels, and platelets were seen at 12-week post therapy. Treatment was well tolerated. No grade 3 or 4 adverse events were noted. Headache and fatigue were the most common complaints.

CONCLUSION

Combination of sofosbuvir and simeprevir for 12 weeks resulted in 94% sustained virological response-12 rates in patients with hepatitis C genotype 1 and was well tolerated.

Treatment of chronic hepatitis C in liver transplant candidates and recipients: Where do we stand?

The first generation direct antiviral agents (DAAs) highlighted substantial prognosis improvement among liver transplant (LT) candidates and recipients with recurrent hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. During 2014, second generation DAAs are associated with high sustained virological response rates (> 95%), shortened duration courses and relatively few toxicities. In keeping with the currently available data, patients with decompensated cirrhosis awaiting LT is preferable to be treated with interferon-free, new generation DAAs, with or without ribavirin combinations. Although data about the safety of new DAAs combinations in this patient population are limited, sofosbuvir and daclatasvir pharmacokinetics do not appear to change significantly in moderate or severe liver impairment, while other new DAAs (simeprevir, asunaprevir) seem to be contraindicated in patients with severe liver impairment (Child-Pugh class C). On the other hand, sofosbuvir should not be given in patients with glomerular filtration rate ≤ 30 mL/min, but ongoing trials will clarify better this issue. With the objective that newer antiviral combinations will yield safer and more efficient manipulation of HCV recurrence post-transplant, the European Association for the Study of the Liver has recently updated its recommendations towards this direction. Nevertheless the new antivirals' high cost may be the biggest challenge to their implementation worldwide.

Beyond the NIH Multicenter HIV Transplant Trial Experience: Outcomes of HIV+ Liver Transplant Recipients Compared to HCV+ or HIV+/HCV+ Coinfected Recipients in the United States

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of liver transplant (LT) in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and HIV/hepatitis C virus (HCV) coinfected recipients in the United States is unknown. We investigated (i) the effect of HIV on US patient and allograft LT outcomes, compared to HCV+ and HIV/HCV uninfected recipients and (ii) whether LT at centers that participated in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Solid Organ Transplantation in HIV Trial, reflecting experience and a standardized approach to patient selection, impacted outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of primary LT recipients transplanted 27 February 2002 through 31 December 2013, categorized by serostatus: HCV+ (n = 20 829), HIV+ (n = 72), HIV+/HCV+ (n = 160), and HIV-/HCV- uninfected (n = 22 926) as reference. Survival was determined using Cox regression, stratified according to center NIH trial participation.

RESULTS

HCV (hazard ratio [HR] 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41-1.52) and HIV/HCV coinfection (HR 2.62, 95% CI, 2.06-3.33) were associated with mortality; HIV monoinfection was not (HR 1.37, 95% CI, .86-2.18). This was unchanged after stratification on NIH trial participation, although mortality was higher in NIH-enrolling (HIV+: HR 1.65, 95% CI, .93-2.92; HIV+/HCV+: HR 3.15, 95% CI, 2.32-4.28) than in non-enrolling centers (HIV+: HR 1.03, 95% CI, .43-2.47, HIV+/HCV+: HR 2.55, 95% CI, 1.64-3.96). Although allograft loss was higher in HIV/HCV coinfected recipients transplanted at enrolling (HR 2.64, 9%% CI, 1.91-3.64) vs nonenrolling centers (HR 2.22, 95% CI, 1.41-3.49), there was no difference in HIV and HCV monoinfected patients.

CONCLUSIONS

HIV+ LT recipient outcomes were superior to HCV+ or HIV/HCV coinfected recipients. Despite a standardized approach and plausibly more experience with HIV patients, transplantation at NIH study center did not improve outcomes.

Management of Hepatitis C Post-liver Transplantation: a Comprehensive Review

Infection with hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a common cause of chronic liver disease, and HCV-related cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma are the leading causes for liver transplantation in the Western world. Recurrent infection of the transplanted liver allograft is universal in patients with detectable HCV viremia at the time of transplant and can cause a spectrum of disease, ranging from asymptomatic chronic infection to an aggressive fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis. Recurrent HCV is more aggressive in the post-transplant population and is a leading cause of allograft loss, morbidity, and mortality. Historically, treatment of recurrent HCV has been limited by low rates of treatment success and high side effect profiles. Over the past few years, promising new therapies have emerged for the treatment of HCV that have high rates of sustained virological response without the need for interferon based regimens. In addition to being highly effective, these treatments have higher rates of adherence and a lower side effect profile. The purpose of this review is to summarize current therapies in recurrent HCV infection, to review the recent advances in therapy, and to highlight areas of ongoing research.

Multicenter experience using simeprevir and sofosbuvir with or without ribavirin to treat hepatitis C genotype 1 after liver transplant

Treatment with an all-oral interferon-free antiviral regimen using simeprevir and sofosbuvir with or without ribavirin (RBV) for 12 weeks resulted in high sustained virologic response (SVR) rates along with minimal adverse events in non-liver transplant (LT) patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 infection. This is the first multicenter report on the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of this regimen in LT recipients. A total of 123 patients (76% male, 74% white, 60% genotype 1a, 30% METAVIR F3-F4, 4% decompensation, 11% cholestatic recurrence, 7% had kidney transplant, and 82% previously failed pegylated interferon/RBV-based regimens) received treatment and were followed for a median of 30 weeks (range 12-53 weeks). The median time from LT to treatment was 32 months (range 2-317 months). Tacrolimus was the primary immunosuppression in 91% of patients. Minimal immunosuppression dose adjustments were required. An SVR 12 weeks after treatment completion (SVR12) was achieved in 90% of patients (95% confidence interval 84%-96%). In patients with genotype 1a infection, the SVR12 rate was significantly lower in those with METAVIR F3-F4 (71%) compared to those with F0-F2 (91%). Half of the patients achieved undetected HCV RNA at treatment week 4, and their SVR12 rate was significantly higher (96%) compared to those with detectable HCV RNA (83%). Treatment was very well tolerated with mild degrees of adverse events, except for one death possibly due to drug-induced lung injury. In the 25 patients who received RBV, 72% developed anemia requiring intervention.

CONCLUSION

An all-oral interferon-free antiviral regimen using simeprevir and sofosbuvir with or without RBV for 12 weeks was very well tolerated and resulted in excellent SVR12 rates in LT recipients with HCV genotype 1 infection.

Sofosbuvir and simeprevir for treatment of hepatitis C virus infection in liver transplant recipients

Recurrent hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection occurs universally in the allograft in the absence of effective antiviral therapy before liver transplantation (LT). Antiviral therapy with sofosbuvir and simeprevir has proven to be highly effective and well tolerated in the nontransplant setting for treatment of HCV genotype 1 infection; therefore, we sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this regimen in LT recipients with recurrent HCV infection. This was a retrospective analysis of a single-center treatment protocol of patients with HCV genotype 1 infection who received a 12-week combination regimen of sofosbuvir and simeprevir. Sixty-one patients (35 with genotype 1a and 26 with genotype 1b) completed treatment with simeprevir and sofosbuvir. Three patients received additional ribavirin. Laboratory data and clinical assessments performed at the baseline, on treatment, at the end of treatment, and 12 weeks after the completion of antiviral therapy [sustained virological response at 12 weeks (SVR12)] were analyzed. The median time after LT was 5.4 years [interquartile range (IQR), 1.9-8.4 years], and tacrolimus was the most commonly used immunosuppressive agent (80.3%). Overall, SVR12 was achieved in 93.4% [95% confidence interval (CI), 84%-97%] of LT recipients treated with 12 weeks of sofosbuvir and simeprevir. When they were analyzed according to the HCV subtype, LT recipients with genotype 1b had a 100% SVR12 rate (95% CI, 87%-100%), whereas SVR12 was 89% (95% CI, 74%-95%) for those with genotype 1a. Advanced fibrosis (METAVIR F3-F4) was associated with diminished antiviral efficacy in LT recipients with genotype 1a [SVR12, 67% (95% CI, 39%-86%); P = 0.01]. Overall, the incidence of adverse events (AEs) was low, and no severe AEs occurred during treatment. In conclusion, treatment with a 12-week regimen of sofosbuvir and simeprevir was well tolerated and resulted in a high SVR12 rate for LT recipients with recurrent HCV genotype 1 infection. Genotype 1a patients with advanced fibrosis of the allograft were more likely to relapse.

Mycophenolate mofetil may induce prolonged severe anemia during pegylated-interferon/ribavirin/simeprevir therapy in liver transplant recipients

Aim: Pegylated-interferon/ribavirin/simeprevir (PEG-IFN/RBV/SMV) combination therapy is widely used for hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment after liver transplantation (LT). Here, we observed two cases of extended severe anemia during PEG-IFN/RBV/SMV therapy for HCV serological type 1 re-infected after LT. Immunosuppressants consisted of tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF). Case 1 was a 65-year-old-woman treated with PEG-IFN/RBV/SMV therapy and 500 mg MMF/day 9 months after LT. Her serum hemoglobin (Hb) level decreased from 10 to 8.4 mg/dL on day 25. Despite discontinuing the PEG-IFN/RBV/SMV treatment on day 32, her Hb level decreased to 5.1 mg/dL on day 40. Case 2 was a 61-year-old-woman started on PEG-IFN/RBV/SMV therapy 20 months after LT. Her serum Hb level decreased from 12.2 to 7.1 mg/dL on day 39. The MMF dose was reduced from 1,500 to 1,000 mg/day, and her Hb level was maintained. Red blood cell transfusions were required in both cases, and anemia persisted for 2 months. These patients had the C/C major type inosine triphosphatase (ITPA) polymorphism. In conclusion, MMF induced severe persistent anemia by co-treatment with IFN/RBV in patients who underwent LT. Thus, the immunosuppressant dose should be chosen carefully for patients with the high-risk ITPA allele.

Update on the management of the liver transplant patient

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review and highlight recent literature regarding the medical management of adult patients undergoing liver transplantation.

RECENT FINDINGS

The addition of serum sodium concentration to the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score more accurately predicts 90-day waitlist mortality. Predictors of waitlist mortality and posttransplant survival include lower albumin and the presence of ascites, varices, and encephalopathy, as well as more nontraditional predictors such as older age, obesity, frailty, and sarcopenia. Indications for liver transplantation are evolving with the advent of effective therapy for hepatitis C and the increased prevalence of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Disparities persist in the current allocation system, including geographic variation and MELD inflation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Share 35 allows for broader regional sharing of organs for patients with the highest need, without detrimental effects on waitlist mortality or survival. Everolimus is a recently approved option for posttransplant immunosuppression that spares renal function.

SUMMARY

The MELD score has enabled the liver transplant community to equitably allocate organs. Recent literature has focused on the limitations of the MELD score and the disparities inherent in the current system. The next steps for liver transplantation will be to develop strategies to further optimize waitlist prioritization and organ allocation.