Cost Effectiveness of Transplanting HCV-Infected Livers Into Uninfected Recipients With Preemptive Antiviral Therapy

Expanding the liver donor pool worldwide with hepatitis C infected livers, is it the time?

Liver transplantation (LT) provides a life-saving option for cirrhotic patients with complications and hepatocellular carcinoma. Despite the increasing number of liver transplants performed each year, the number of LT candidates on the waitlist remains unchanged due to an imbalance between donor organ supply and the demand which increases the waitlist time and mortality. Living donor liver transplant had a great role in increasing the donor pool and shortened waitlist time for LT candidates. Nevertheless, further strategies can be implemented to increase the pool of potential donors in deceased donor LT, such as reducing the rate of organ discards. Utilizing hepatitis C virus (HCV) seropositive liver grafts is one of the expanded donor organ criteria. A yearly increase of hundreds of transplants is anticipated as a result of maximizing the utilization of HCV-positive organs for HCV-negative recipients. Direct-acting antiviral therapy's efficacy has revolutionized the treatment of HCV infection and the use of HCV-seropositive donors in transplantation. The American Society of Transplantation advises against performing transplants from HCV-infected liver donors (D+) into HCV-negative recipient (R-) unless under Institutional Review Board-approved study rules and with full informed consent of the knowledge gaps associated with such transplants. Proper selection of patients to be transplanted with HCV-infected grafts and confirming their access to direct-acting antivirals if needed is important. National and international consensuses are needed to regulate this process to ensure the maximum benefit and the least adverse events.

Cost effectiveness of hepatitis C direct acting agents

INTRODUCTION

Introduction of direct acting antivirals (DAA) has transformed treatment of chronic hepatitis C (HCV) and made the elimination of HCV an achievable goal set forward by World Health Organization by 2030. Multiple barriers need to be overcome for successful eradication of HCV. Availability of pan-genotypic HCV regimens has decreased the need for genotype testing but maintained high efficacy associated with DAAs.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we will assess the cost-effectiveness of DAA treatment in patients with chronic HCV disease, with emphasis on general, cirrhosis, and vulnerable populations.

EXPERT OPINION

Multiple barriers exist limiting eradication of HCV, including cost to treatment, access, simplified testing, and implementing policy to foster treatment for all groups of HCV patients. Clinically, DAAs have drastically changed the landscape of HCV, but focused targeting of vulnerable groups is needed. Public policy will continue to play a strong role in eliminating HCV. While we will focus on the cost-effectiveness of DAA, several other factors regarding HCV require on going attention, such as increasing public awareness and decreasing social stigma associated with HCV, offering universal screening followed by linkage to treatment and improving preventive interventions to decrease spread of HCV.

Quality-adjusted life years and surgical waiting list: Systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

The quality-adjusted life year (QALY) is a metric that is increasingly used today in the field of health economics to evaluate the value of different medical treatments and procedures. Surgical waiting lists (SWLs) represent a pressing problem in public healthcare. The QALY measure has rarely been used in the context of surgery. It would be interesting to know how many QALYs are lost by patients on SWLs.

AIM

To investigate the relationship between QALYs and SWLs in a systematic review of the scientific literature.

METHODS

The study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement. An unlimited search was carried out in PubMed, updated on January 19, 2024. Data on the following variables were investigated and analyzed: Specialty, country of study, procedure under study, scale used to measure QALYs, the use of a theoretical or real-life model, objectives of the study and items measured, the economic value assigned to the QALY in the country in question, and the results and conclusions published.

RESULTS

Forty-eight articles were selected for the study. No data were found regarding QALYs lost on SWLs. The specialties in which QALYs were studied the most in relation to the waiting list were urology and general surgery, with 15 articles each. The country in which the most studies of QALYs were carried out was the United States (n = 21), followed by the United Kingdom (n = 9) and Canada (n = 7). The most studied procedure was organ transplantation (n = 39), including 15 kidney, 14 liver, 5 heart, 4 lung, and 1 intestinal. Arthroplasty (n = 4), cataract surgery (n = 2), bariatric surgery (n = 1), mosaicplasty (n = 1), and septoplasty (n = 1) completed the surgical interventions included. Thirty-nine of the models used were theoretical (the most frequently applied being the Markov model, n = 34), and nine were real-life. The survey used to measure quality of life in 11 articles was the European Quality of Life-5 dimensions, but in 32 articles the survey was not specified. The willingness-to-pay per QALY gained ranged from $100000 in the United States to €20000 in Spain.

CONCLUSION

The relationship between QALYs and SWLs has only rarely been studied in the literature. The rate of QALYs lost on SWLs has not been determined. Future research is warranted to address this issue.

The Cost-effectiveness of Transplanting Hearts From Hepatitis C-infected Donors Into Uninfected Recipients

BACKGROUND

The DONATE HCV trial demonstrated the safety and efficacy of transplanting hearts from hepatitis C viremic (HCV+) donors. In this report, we examine the cost-effectiveness and impact of universal HCV+ heart donor eligibility in the United States on transplant waitlist time and life expectancy.

METHODS

We developed a microsimulation model to compare 2 waitlist strategies for heart transplant candidates in 2018: (1) status quo (SQ) and (2) SQ plus HCV+ donors (SQ + HCV). From the DONATE HCV trial and published national datasets, we modeled mean age (53 years), male sex (75%), probabilities of waitlist mortality (0.01-0.10/month) and transplant (0.03-0.21/month) stratified by medical urgency, and posttransplant mortality (0.003-0.052/month). We assumed a 23% increase in transplant volume with SQ + HCV compared with SQ. Costs (2018 United States dollar) included waitlist care ($2200-190 000/month), transplant ($213 400), 4-wk HCV treatment ($26 000), and posttransplant care ($2500-11 300/month). We projected waitlist time, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs [$/QALY, discounted 3%/year]; threshold ≤$100 000/QALY).

RESULTS

Compared with SQ, SQ + HCV decreased waitlist time from 8.7 to 6.7 months, increased undiscounted life expectancy from 8.9 to 9.2 QALYs, and increased discounted lifetime costs from $671 400/person to $690 000/person. Four-week HCV treatment comprised 0.5% of lifetime costs. The ICER of SQ + HCV compared with SQ was $74 100/QALY and remained ≤$100 000/QALY with up to 30% increases in transplant and posttransplant costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Transplanting hearts from HCV-infected donors could decrease waitlist times, increase life expectancy, and be cost-effective. These findings were robust within the context of current high HCV treatment costs.

Another Step Toward Hepatitis C Elimination: An Economic Evaluation of an Irish National Birth Cohort Testing Program

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of offering once-off birth cohort testing for hepatitis C virus (HCV) to people in Ireland born between 1965 and 1985, the cohort with the highest reported prevalence of undiagnosed chronic HCV infection.

METHODS

Systematic and opportunistic HCV birth cohort testing programs, implemented over a 4-year timeframe, were compared with the current practice of population risk-based testing only in a closed-cohort decision tree and Markov model hybrid over a lifetime time horizon. Outcomes were expressed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs were presented from the health system's perspective in 2020 euro (€). Uncertainty was assessed via deterministic, probabilistic, scenario, and threshold analyses.

RESULTS

In the base case, systematic testing yielded the largest cost and health benefits, followed by opportunistic testing and risk-based testing. Compared with risk-based testing, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for opportunistic testing was €14 586 (95% confidence interval €4185-€33 527) per QALY gained. Compared with opportunistic testing, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for systematic testing was €16 827 (95% confidence interval €5106-€38 843) per QALY gained. These findings were robust across a range of sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Both systematic and opportunistic birth cohort testing would be considered an efficient use of resources, but systematic testing was the optimal strategy at willingness-to-pay threshold values typically used in Ireland. Although cost-effective, any decision to introduce birth cohort testing for HCV (in Ireland or elsewhere) must be balanced with considerations regarding the feasibility and budget impact of implementing a national testing program given high initial costs and resource use.

The Use of Hepatitis C Virus-Positive Organs in Hepatitis C Virus-Negative Recipients

The use of hepatitis C virus (HCV) -positive organs in HCV-negative recipients with posttransplant antiviral treatment has increasingly been studied since the introduction of new direct-acting antivirals. This article reviews existing experience in liver and kidney transplant. Fifteen studies with 218 HCV D+/R- liver transplants, with 182 from viremic donors, show a sustained viral response for 12 weeks (SVR12) rate of 99.5%. Nine studies involving 204 HCV donor-positive recipient-negative kidney transplant recipients had an SVR12 rate of 99.5%. Complications are infrequent. Preemptive treatment in kidney transplant of for only 4 weeks or even 4 days showed surprising success rates.

Cost-Effectiveness of Utilization of Hepatitis B Virus-Positive Liver Donors for HBV-Negative Transplant Recipients

BACKGROUND

Utilization of hepatitis B virus (HBV)-infected donors represents an opportunity to expand the liver transplantation (LT) donor pool. However, benefits of accepting HBV-positive donors for HBV-negative candidates, potentially expanding the donor pool resulting in earlier transplantation, must be balanced with costs of lifelong antiviral therapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate cost-effectiveness of this strategy.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model with two strategies, transplant with (1) a HBV-positive donor versus and (2) a HBV-negative donor for a HBV-negative LT candidate. A healthcare system perspective was utilized, effectiveness measured in quality-adjusted life-years, and costs in 2018 USD.

RESULTS

In the base-case, the HBV-positive donor strategy is more effective (gain of 0.46 QALYs), but $26,159 more expensive, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $57,389/QALY. However, increasing the candidate's Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score resulted in increasing cost-effectiveness, ICER of $69,507/QALY (MELD 6-10) to $47,385/QALY (MELD > 30). Results were most sensitive to antiviral cost and cost after first year of LT. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the HBV-positive strategy was always more effective but more expensive, with average ICER of $64,883/QALY. This strategy was highly cost-effective (ICER < $50,000/QALY) 21% of the time and cost < $100/000/QALY 94% of the time.

CONCLUSIONS

Consideration of these donors must be individualized to each candidate's severity of liver disease, associated costs, and personal preferences that impact quality of life. Expansion of the donor pool to include HBV-positive donors for appropriate recipients may be a cost-effective policy and may provide significant benefit for individual patients.

The current status of virus-positive liver transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The last 2 years have seen significant developments in virus-positive liver transplantation. This review provides an updated account of the transplantation of hepatitis C virus (HCV), hepatitis B virus (HBV) and HIV-positive livers, with a specific focus on studies published in the last 18 months.

RECENT FINDINGS

The advent of highly efficacious direct acting antiviral agents, nucleos(t)ide analogues and a continued organ shortage have led to the well tolerated utilization of HCV, HBV and HIV-positive organs. There has been a significant increase in the transplantation of HCV seropositive and NAT+ organs into HCV-negative recipients, without compromising patient or graft survival. Early reports of HBV core antibody (HBVcAb), HBV surface antigen (HBVsAg) positive and NAT+ donors are growing in the USA with promising results. Similarly, small studies have described the use of HIV-positive to HIV-positive liver transplantation without concerns for superinfection.

SUMMARY

HCV, HBV and HIV-positive liver transplantations can be accomplished safely and are associated with equivalent outcomes when paired with appropriate recipients. The practice of virus positive liver transplantation should be encouraged to combat the ongoing organ shortage.

Hepatitis C-positive liver transplantation: outcomes and current practice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The coincidence of the opioid epidemic and the approval of direct-acting antivirals for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) has resulted in an imbalance in HCV viraemic donors relative to HCV viraemic patients awaiting liver transplantation. Although ethical concerns exist about knowingly infecting patients with HCV in the absence of prospective, protocolized studies, transplantation of HCV-positive liver allografts into HCV-negative recipients has increased exponentially in recent years. For this reason, we sought to review outcomes, cost-effectiveness and ethical concerns associated with this practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

Short-term outcomes in terms of patient and graft survival are equivalent to those who received HCV-negative allografts without an increase in acute rejection, biliary or vascular complications. Few cases of treatment failure have been reported and complications related to the virus itself such as fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis and membranous glomerulonephritis are rare and reversible with prompt direct-acting antiretroviral treatment. The practice appears cost-effective and modelling suggests a survival benefit for patients willing to accept HCV-positive organs compared with those who do not.

SUMMARY

In light of the preponderance of current data, one could argue it is unethical to withhold HCV-positive grafts from HCV-negative recipients who have undergone thorough informed consent.

Cost-effectiveness of using hepatitis C viremic hearts for transplantation into HCV-negative recipients

Outcomes following hepatitis C virus (HCV)-viremic heart transplantation into HCV-negative recipients with HCV treatment are good. We assessed cost-effectiveness between cohorts of transplant recipients willing and unwilling to receive HCV-viremic hearts. Markov model simulated long-term outcomes among HCV-negative patients on the transplant waitlist. We compared costs (2018 USD) and health outcomes (quality-adjusted life-years, QALYs) between cohorts willing to accept any heart and those willing to accept only HCV-negative hearts. We assumed 4.9% HCV-viremic donor prevalence. Patients receiving HCV-viremic hearts were treated, assuming $39 600/treatment with 95% cure. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were compared to a $100 000/QALY gained willingness-to-pay threshold. Sensitivity analyses included stratification by blood type or region and potential negative consequences of receipt of HCV-viremic hearts. Compared to accepting only HCV-negative hearts, accepting any heart gained 0.14 life-years and 0.11 QALYs, while increasing costs by $9418/patient. Accepting any heart was cost effective (ICER $85 602/QALY gained). Results were robust to all transplant regions and blood types, except type AB. Accepting any heart remained cost effective provided posttransplant mortality and costs among those receiving HCV-viremic hearts were not >7% higher compared to HCV-negative hearts. Willingness to accept HCV-viremic hearts for transplantation into HCV-negative recipients is cost effective and improves clinical outcomes.

Paradigm Shift in Utilization of Livers from Hepatitis C-Viremic Donors into Hepatitis C Virus-Negative Patients

Despite record-breaking numbers of liver transplants (LTs) performed in the United States in each of the last 7 years, many patients remain on the wait list as the demand for LT continues to exceed the supply of available donors. The emergence of highly effective and well-tolerated direct-acting antiviral therapy has transformed the clinical course and management of hepatitis C virus (HCV) in both the pretransplant and posttransplant setting. Historically, donor livers infected with HCV were either transplanted into patients already infected with HCV or discarded.

Transplanting Organs from Donors with HIV or Hepatitis C: The Viral Frontier

A wide gap between the increasing demand for organs and the limited supply leads to immeasurable loss of life each year. The organ shortage could be attenuated by donors with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV). The transplantation of organs from HIV+ deceased donors into HIV+ individuals (HIV D+ /R+) was initiated in South Africa in 2010; however, this practice was forbidden in the USA until the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act in 2013. HIV D+/R+ transplantation is now practiced in the USA as part of ongoing research studies, helping to reduce waiting times for all patients on the waitlist. The introduction of direct acting antivirals for HCV has revolutionized the utilization of donors with HCV for HCV-uninfected (HCV-) recipients. This is particularly relevant as the HCV donor pool has increased substantially in the context of the rise in deaths related to drug overdose from injection drug use. This article serves to review the current literature on using organs from donors with HIV or HCV.

Utilization of hepatitis C viremic donors for liver transplant recipients without hepatitis C. A veterans transplant center report

BACKGROUND

We report our experience utilizing liver donors with HCV Viremia (RNA+) for HCV-negative recipients (HCV D+R-) at a Veterans Affairs (VA) transplant center.

METHODS

In 2018, we introduced an informed consent process for HCV D+R- liver transplants.

RESULTS

Eight HCV D+R- liver transplants (LT) were performed. Median time from listing to LT was 189 days (range 41-511). Median MELD at LT was 23.5 (median MELD at LT of 31 for center). All recipients developed HCV viremia after transplant. Median time to DAA initiation was 10 days after viremia (range 3-25). After transplant, the DAAs used were Mavyret in five recipients and Epclusa in three, all for 12 weeks. All eight patients completed DAA therapy and achieved negative HCV RNA by end of therapy (ETR) and seven reached sustained virologic response (SVR) by 12 weeks after end of therapy. One patient died from chronic ischemic encephalopathy after ETR, before SVR.

CONCLUSIONS

HCV D+R- is a practical strategy to expand the pool of donor organs. It shortened waiting time, allowing patients to receive transplants at lower MELD scores. VA liver transplant programs have provided universal and timely access to post-transplant HCV DAA therapy after donor-derived infection.

Transplanting Livers From "HCV-Positive" Donors To HCV-Negative Recipients: Increased Experience But Many Unanswered Questions

Over the past several years, single- and multi-center case series have reported on the successful use of livers from hepatitis C virus (HCV)-antibody positive and HCV-viremic donors to HCV-negative recipients. Several authors have studied not only the efficacy of this practice but also its cost-effectiveness of transplanting HCV-infected organs to HCV-negative donors. However, previous studies had limited follow-up and had not examined transplants beyond the beginning of 2018. Using national data from 2014-2018, Thuluvath et al. demonstrated that post-transplant outcomes of recipients from either HCV-antibody and/or HCV-viremic donors were not different than those using livers from HCV-negative donors.

Immediate administration of antiviral therapy after transplantation of hepatitis C-infected livers into uninfected recipients: Implications for therapeutic planning

The practice of transplanting hepatitis C (HCV)-infected livers into HCV-uninfected recipients has not previously been recommended in transplant guidelines, in part because of concerns over uncontrolled HCV infection of the allograft. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) provide an opportunity to treat donor-derived HCV-infection and should be administered early in the posttransplant period. However, evidence on the safety and efficacy of an immediate DAA treatment approach, including how to manage logistical barriers surrounding timely DAA procurement, are required prior to broader use of HCV-positive donor organs. We report the results of a trial in which 14 HCV-negative patients underwent successful liver transplantation from HCV-positive donors. Nine patients received viremic (nucleic acid testing [NAT]-positive) livers and started a 12-week course of oral glecaprevir-pibrentasvir within 5 days of transplant. Five patients received livers from HCV antibody-positive nonviremic donors and were followed using a reactive approach. Survival in NAT-positive recipients is 100% at a median follow-up of 46 weeks. An immediate treatment approach for HCV NAT-positive liver transplantation into uninfected recipients is safe and efficacious. Securing payer approval for DAAs early in the posttransplant course could enable need-based allocation of HCV-positive donor organs irrespective of candidate HCV status, while averting chronic HCV allograft infection.

Screening of donors and recipients for infections prior to solid organ transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review is a brief overview of current guidelines on screening donors and candidates for bacterial, fungal, parasitic and viral infections prior to solid organ transplantation. The pretransplant period is an important time to evaluate infection exposure risk based on social history as well as to offer vaccinations.

RECENT FINDINGS

One of the major changes in the past few years has been increased utilization of increased Public Health Service risk, HIV positive, and hepatitis C-positive donors. There has also been increased attention to donor and recipient risks for geographically associated infections, such as endemic fungal infections and flaviviruses.

SUMMARY

Screening for donors and candidates prior to organ transplantation can identify and address infection risks. Diagnosing infections in a timely manner can help guide treatment and additional testing. Use of necessary prophylactic treatment in organ recipients can prevent reactivation of latent infections and improve posttransplant outcomes.

Evolving Cell-Based and Cell-Free Clinical Strategies for Treating Severe Human Liver Diseases

Liver diseases represent a major global health issue, and currently, liver transplantation is the only viable alternative to reduce mortality rates in patients with end-stage liver diseases. However, scarcity of donor organs and risk of recidivism requiring a re-transplantation remain major obstacles. Hence, much hope has turned towards cell-based therapy. Hepatocyte-like cells obtained from embryonic stem cells or adult stem cells bearing multipotent or pluripotent characteristics, as well as cell-based systems, such as organoids, bio-artificial liver devices, bioscaffolds and organ printing are indeed promising. New approaches based on extracellular vesicles are also being investigated as cell substitutes. Extracellular vesicles, through the transfer of bioactive molecules, can modulate liver regeneration and restore hepatic function. This review provides an update on the current state-of-art cell-based and cell-free strategies as alternatives to liver transplantation for patients with end-stage liver diseases.

Expanding the donor pool: Hepatitis C, hepatitis B and human immunodeficiency virus-positive donors in liver transplantation

Liver transplantation (LT) remains the best option for patients with end-stage liver disease but the demand for organs from deceased donors continues to outweigh the available supply. The advent of highly effective anti-viral treatments has reduced the number of patients undergoing LT for hepatitis C (HCV) and hepatitis B (HBV) related liver disease and yet the number of patients waiting for LT continues to increase, driven by an increase in the patients listed with a diagnosis of cirrhosis due to non-alcoholic steatohepatitis and alcohol-related liver disease. In addition, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, which was previously a contra-indication for LT, is no longer a fatal disease due to the effectiveness of HIV therapy and patients with HIV and liver disease are now developing indications for LT. The rising demand for LT is projected to increase further in the future, thus driving the need to investigate potential means of expanding the pool of potential donors. One mechanism for doing so is utilizing organs from donors that previously would have been discarded or used only in exceptional circumstances such as HCV-positive, HBV-positive, and HIV-positive donors. The advent of highly effective anti-viral therapy has meant that these organs can now be used with excellent outcomes in HCV, HBV or HIV infected recipients and in some cases uninfected recipients.

Use of HCV-infected organs in solid organ transplantation: An ethical challenge but plausible option

Due to the unfortunate epidemic of opioid overdose deaths among people who inject drugs (PWID) in North America, there has been an increase in the availability of hepatitis C (HCV)-positive organs for transplantation and consequently the potential to decrease waiting times for solid organ transplantation if an HCV-uninfected recipient is willing to accept an HCV-positive donor. The confidence in this potential new strategy comes as a result of the advent of safe and highly effective pan-genotypic direct-acting antivirals (DAAs). This promising strategy has been the most widely studied in kidney transplantation. Liver transplantation has positive results preliminarily, but has even less available data because viable HCV-infected donor livers are typically transplanted into HCV-infected individuals. Further, while HCV-infected heart and lung transplantation, which face additional post-transplant issues, have shown encouraging results, these studies are small scale and are limited by short-term follow-up. Thus, it would be premature to implement this strategy as standard of care without large scale clinical and real-world trials and longer-term follow-up studies. Further, the ethics of this practice need to be considered. While some transplant professionals argue that more harm will be done by not utilizing HCV-infected organs, others contend that cautiously conducted multi-centre studies involving extensive post-transplant follow-up are paramount prior to endorsing widespread implementation of this strategy. The ethical permissibility of this practice hinges on whether access to DAA therapy can be secured in advance, and prospective recipients understand and accept all the risks associated with acquiring HCV.

Temporal Changes and Regional Variation in Acceptance of Hepatitis C Virus-Viremic Livers

The high efficacy of current hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapy and increased numbers of HCV-infected deceased donors have changed the paradigm of HCV in liver transplantation (LT). Modeling studies have been performed to evaluate the optimal timing of HCV treatment (before versus after LT) in HCV-infected patients and to assess the cost-effectiveness of transplanting HCV-infected livers into HCV- patients. However, these models rely on historical data and have not quantified the temporal changes in the median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score at transplant of recipients of an HCV-infected liver across geographic areas. We performed a retrospective cohort study of Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) data of nonstatus 1 deceased donor LT recipients from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018, and we calculated the difference in allocation MELD score in recipients of HCV nucleic acid test (NAT)- versus NAT+ livers by year and UNOS region. We used Pearson correlation coefficients to assess the relationship between MELD score difference in recipients of HCV NAT+ versus HCV NAT- livers and the proportion of non-HCV recipients of HCV NAT+ livers. Nationally, the allocation MELD score difference at LT in recipients of HCV NAT+ versus NAT- livers did not change (4-point difference). This stability was seen in regions 3, 5, and 10. In regions 1, 7, 8, 9, and 11, the MELD score difference decreased, which is a diminishing advantage. However, in regions 2 and 4, it increased, which is a rising advantage. In 2018, recipients of HCV NAT+ livers had a lower MELD score in 9/11 regions, and the MELD score advantage of accepting HCV NAT+ livers had a moderate inverse correlation with the regional use in non-HCV patients (r = -0.53). These data should be used to inform clinicians of the pre- and post-LT trade-offs of HCV treatment.

Hepatitis C

Hepatitis C is a global health problem, and an estimated 71·1 million individuals are chronically infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV). The global incidence of HCV was 23·7 cases per 100 000 population (95% uncertainty interval 21·3-28·7) in 2015, with an estimated 1·75 million new HCV infections diagnosed in 2015. Globally, the most common infections are with HCV genotypes 1 (44% of cases), 3 (25% of cases), and 4 (15% of cases). HCV transmission is most commonly associated with direct percutaneous exposure to blood, via blood transfusions, health-care-related injections, and injecting drug use. Key high-risk populations include people who inject drugs, men who have sex with men, and prisoners. Approximately 10-20% of individuals who are chronically infected with HCV develop complications, such as cirrhosis, liver failure, and hepatocellular carcinoma over a period of 20-30 years. Direct-acting antiviral therapy is now curative, but it is estimated that only 20% of individuals with hepatitis C know their diagnosis, and only 15% of those with known hepatitis C have been treated. Increased diagnosis and linkage to care through universal access to affordable point-of-care diagnostics and pangenotypic direct-acting antiviral therapy is essential to achieve the WHO 2030 elimination targets.

Pre-emptive pangenotypic direct acting antiviral therapy in donor HCV-positive to recipient HCV-negative heart transplantation: an open-label study

BACKGROUND

Low donor heart availability underscores the need to identify all potentially transplantable organs. We sought to determine whether pre-emptive administration of pangenotypic direct-acting antiviral therapy can safely prevent the development of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in uninfected recipients of HCV-infected donor hearts.

METHODS

Patients were recruited for this an open-label, single-centre, proof-of-concept study from Nov 1, 2017, to Nov 30, 2018. Following enrolment, the recipient's status on the heart transplantation waiting list was updated to reflect a willingness to accept either an HCV-positive or HCV-negative heart donor. Patients who underwent transplantation with a viraemic donor heart, as determined by nucleic acid testing (NAT), received pre-emptive oral glecaprevir-pibrentasvir before transport to the operating room followed by an 8-week course of glecaprevir-pibrentasvir after transplantation. Patients receiving HCV antibody-positive donor hearts without detectable circulating HCV RNA were followed using a reactive approach and started glecaprevir-pibrentasvir only if they developed viraemia. The primary outcome was achievement of sustained virological response 12 weeks after completion of glecaprevir-pibrentasvir therapy (SVR12). Patients were followed from study enrolment to 1 year after transplantation. This is an interim analysis, initiated after all enrolled patients reached the primary outcome. Results reflect data from Nov 1, 2017, to May 30, 2019. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03208244.

FINDINGS

55 patients were assessed for eligibility and 52 consented to enrolment. 25 patients underwent heart transplantation with HCV-positive donor hearts (20 NAT-positive, five NAT-negative), three of whom underwent simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation. All 20 recipients of NAT-positive hearts tolerated glecaprevir-pibrentasvir and showed rapid viral suppression (median time to clearance 3·5 days, IQR 0·0-8·3), with the subsequent achievement of SVR12 by all 20. The five recipients of NAT-negative grafts did not become viraemic. Median pre-transplant waiting time for patients following enrolment in the HCV protocol was 20 days (IQR 8-57). Patient and allograft survival were 100% at a median follow-up of 10·7 months (range 6·5-18·0).

INTERPRETATION

Pre-emptive administration of glecaprevir-pibrentasvir therapy results in expedited organ transplantation, rapid HCV suppression, prevention of chronic HCV infection, and excellent early allograft function in patients receiving HCV-infected donor hearts. Long-term outcomes are not yet known.

FUNDING

American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, National Institutes of Health, and the Massachusetts General Hospital.

Liver transplantation for hepatitis C virus (HCV) non-viremic recipients with HCV viremic donors

In the context of organ shortage, the opioid epidemic, and effective direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy for hepatitis C virus (HCV), more HCV-infected donor organs may be used for liver transplantation. Current data regarding outcomes after donor-derived HCV in previously non-viremic liver transplant recipients are limited. Clinical data for adult liver transplant recipients with donor-derived HCV infection from March 2017 to January 2018 at our institution were extracted from the medical record. Ten patients received livers from donors known to be infected with HCV based on positive nucleic acid testing. Seven had a prior diagnosis of HCV and were treated before liver transplantation. All recipients were non-viremic at the time of transplantation. All 10 recipients derived hepatitis C infection from their donor and achieved sustained virologic response at 12 weeks posttreatment with DAA-based regimens, with a median time from transplant to treatment initiation of 43 days (IQR 20-59). There have been no instances of graft loss or death, with median follow-up of 380 days (IQR 263-434) posttransplant. Transplantation of HCV-viremic livers into non-viremic recipients results in acceptable short-term outcomes. Such strategies may be used to expand the donor pool and increase access to liver transplantation.