Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt: A Possible Risk Factor for Direct-Acting Antiviral Treatment Failure in Patients With Hepatitis C?

Evolution of liver stiffness and post-treatment surveillance by liver elastography for HCV patients in the DAA era

OBJECTIVE

Baseline liver stiffness (LS) is prognostically relevant in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection but may change after successful HCV eradication. Data on post-treatment LS for a further risk stratification remain scarce. Here, we study the kinetics of LS and laboratory parameters in patients undergoing HCV treatment and analyze the association of post-treatment LS with outcome parameters.

METHODS

In a cohort of 1011 chronic HCV patients undergoing DAA treatment, we identified 404 patients with sequential LS and laboratory assessments with or without viral eradication. Additionally, outcome parameters were correlated with post-treatment LS after successful HCV therapy.

RESULTS

LS significantly decreased from a median of 8.8 to 6.1 kPa in 346 patients after HCV eradication, but significantly increased from a median of 10.5 to 11.9 kPa in 58 patients without viral clearance. In 78 patients with two sequential post-treatment measurements, LS decreased from 12.6 to 8.7 kPa after a median 344 d, with a further decrease to 7.0 kPa after a median of 986 d after end of treatment (EoT). In 400 patients with a post-treatment LS assessment after viral eradication, only 9 liver-related events occurred over a median follow-up (FU) of 23 months. All events were observed in patients with a post-treatment LS >20 kPa.

CONCLUSIONS

After successful HCV eradication, LS improves sequentially, suggesting an initial phase of necroinflammation regression followed by a second phase of true fibrosis regression. Overall, liver-related events were rarely observed and seem to be limited to patients with a post-treatment LS >20 kPa, so that these patients require a closer clinical monitoring.

Treatment and re-treatment results of HCV patients in the DAA era

Background

Re-treatment in patients with a chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and a previous failure to direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment remains a challenge. Therefore, we investigated the success rate of treatment and re-treatment regimens used at our center from October 2011 to March 2018.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of DAA-based HCV therapies of 1096 patients was conducted. Factors associated with a virological relapse were identified by univariable and multivariable logistic regression, treatment success of the re-treatment regimens was evaluated by an analysis of sustained virological response (SVR) rates in patients with a documented follow-up 12 weeks after the end of treatment.

Results

Of 1096 patients treated with DAA-based regimens, 91 patients (8%) were lost to follow-up, 892 of the remaining 1005 patients (89%) achieved an SVR12. Most patients (65/113, 58%) who experienced a virological relapse received an interferon-based DAA regimen. SVR rates were comparable in special cohorts like liver transplant recipients (53/61, 87%) and people with a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) coinfection (41/45, 91%). On multivariable analysis, interferon-based DAA therapy was associated with treatment failure (odds ratio 0.111, 95%-confidence interval 0.054–0.218) among others. One hundred seventeen patients with multiple DAA treatment courses were identified, of which 97 patients (83%) experienced a single relapse, but further relapses after two (18/117, 15%) or even three (2/117, 2%) treatment courses were also observed. Eighty-two of 96 (85%) re-treatment attempts with all-oral DAA regimens were successful after an initial treatment failure.

Conclusion

Overall, DAA re-treatments were highly effective in this real-world cohort and only a minority of patients failed more than two treatment courses. Switching to–or addition of–a new drug class seem to be valid options for the re-treatment of patients especially after failure of an interferon-based regimen.

Profile of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir in the treatment of hepatitis C

The treatment of chronic hepatitis C has been revolutionized with the introduction of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs). However, some patients are not cured with first-line treatment. Sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir is a fixed-dose combination of a polymerase inhibitor, an NS5A inhibitor, and a protease inhibitor with activity against strains of the hepatitis C virus that show resistance to other first-line antiviral regimens. Sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir has been studied in four Phase III randomized trials: POLARIS-1, −2, −3, and −4, which enrolled both treatment naïve and experienced patients with and without compensated cirrhosis. In these trials, at least 95% of patients treated with sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir achieved sustained virological response (SVR). This includes favorable treatment outcomes in patients who had previously failed a regimen containing sofosbuvir or an NS5A inhibitor. Patient-reported outcomes also improved during and after treatment with sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir. Treatment with sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir is well tolerated, with the most commonly reported adverse events being headache, fatigue, diarrhea, and nausea. The approval of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir allows a treatment option for patients who have failed treatment with certain DAA regimens.

Ascites control by TIPS is more successful in patients with a lower paracentesis frequency and is associated with improved survival

Background & Aims

Refractory ascites is the main reason for the implantation of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) in liver cirrhosis, but ascites control by TIPS fails in a relevant proportion of cases. Here, we investigated whether routine parameters pre-TIPS can predict persistent ascites after TIPS implantation and whether persistent ascites predicts long-term clinical outcome.

Methods

A detailed retrospective analysis of 128 patients receiving expanded polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stents for the treatment of refractory ascites was performed. Persistent ascites post-TIPS was defined as the prolonged need for paracentesis >3 months after TIPS. The influence of demographics, laboratory results, pre-TIPS heart and liver ultrasound results, and invasive hemodynamic parameters on persistent ascites was evaluated by univariable and multivariable logistic regression. Predictors of the composite endpoint liver transplantation/death were analyzed using a multivariable Cox regression.

Results

Ascites control post-TIPS was achieved in 95/128 patients (74%), whereas ascites remained persistent in 33/128 cases (26%). On multivariable analysis, a lower paracentesis frequency pre-TIPS (odds ratio 1.672; 95% CI 1.253–2.355) and lower baseline creatinine levels (odds ratio 2.640; CI 1.201–6.607) were associated with ascites control. Patients with persistent ascites post-TIPS had and impaired transplant-free survival (median 10.0 vs. 25.8 months), for which persistent ascites was the only independent predictor (hazard ratio 5.654; CI 3.019–10.59).

Conclusion

TIPS-placement in patients with lower paracentesis frequency and creatinine levels is associated with superior ascites control. Thus, TIPS implantation should be considered in moderate decompensation and not as a last resort. Persistent ascites post-TIPS seems to be the only predictor of liver transplantation and death.

Lay summary

The insertion of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) in patients with refractory ascites should be considered in patients with moderate decompensation and not as a last resort, as lower paracentesis frequency and creatinine levels pre-TIPS are associated with superior ascites control. In turn, failure to control ascites seems to be the only predictor of liver transplantation and death.

•

Ascites control post-TIPS is superior if the TIPS is placed at lower paracentesis frequency and creatinine levels.

•

Transplant-free survival is decreased in patients with a failed ascites control post-TIPS.

•

TIPS-placement should be considered “early” in ascitic decompensation.

•

Close monitoring and prioritized organ allocation should be considered in patients with failed ascites control post-TIPS.